KJ-ONLYite claims: Enyart does not believe The Bible is inerrant
- Thread starter brandplucked
- Start date
- Status
brandplucked
New member
The importance of God's WORDS
The importance of God's WORDS
Hi brother. I appreciate your spirit. However, it should be noted that in the Scripture you quoted, what is absolutely necessary are the very WORDS as well as the Spirit. If we say only the Spirit is needed and not so much the words, then we are off into the land of mysticism.
"Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual." 1 Cor.2:13
The big problem with the multitude of conflicting bible versions is that the words are frequently not the same at all. In fact, hundreds of times the words are missing entirely, and then we have hundreds of instances where the words do not mean the same thing at all. This results in confusion, unbelief and the present day Bible Babel.
For instance, the NIV teaches that Christ had "origins" in Micah 5:2. Is this correct doctrine?
The NIV also teaches that there was a day when God became the Father of the Son in Acts 13:33. Is this correct doctine? (By the way, the Jehovah witness version reads the same in both these examples)
The NASB teaches that people actually DECEIVED God in Psalm 78:36.
What is the robe of righteousness that clothes the church? Is it the righteousness of Christ, or our "righteous deeds" and the NKJV, NIV, NASB teach in Revelation 19:8?
If you don't have the Spirit inspired words, you have the wrong doctrines.
God either gave us a perfect Holy Bible we can hold in our hands, or He didn't, and none of them are the inerrant words of God - as most Christians believe today.
In and by His grace,
Will Kinney
The importance of God's WORDS
one4christ said:
Hi brother. I appreciate your spirit. However, it should be noted that in the Scripture you quoted, what is absolutely necessary are the very WORDS as well as the Spirit. If we say only the Spirit is needed and not so much the words, then we are off into the land of mysticism.
"Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual." 1 Cor.2:13
The big problem with the multitude of conflicting bible versions is that the words are frequently not the same at all. In fact, hundreds of times the words are missing entirely, and then we have hundreds of instances where the words do not mean the same thing at all. This results in confusion, unbelief and the present day Bible Babel.
For instance, the NIV teaches that Christ had "origins" in Micah 5:2. Is this correct doctrine?
The NIV also teaches that there was a day when God became the Father of the Son in Acts 13:33. Is this correct doctine? (By the way, the Jehovah witness version reads the same in both these examples)
The NASB teaches that people actually DECEIVED God in Psalm 78:36.
What is the robe of righteousness that clothes the church? Is it the righteousness of Christ, or our "righteous deeds" and the NKJV, NIV, NASB teach in Revelation 19:8?
If you don't have the Spirit inspired words, you have the wrong doctrines.
God either gave us a perfect Holy Bible we can hold in our hands, or He didn't, and none of them are the inerrant words of God - as most Christians believe today.
In and by His grace,
Will Kinney
brandplucked
New member
No infallible Bible - why preach?
No infallible Bible - why preach?
Hi gr, what you have is literally THOUSANDS of words missing in such versions as the NIV, NASB, ESV, all of which are found in versions like the Spanish Reina Valera, the NKJV, the King James Bible, and many others.
What you have are HUNDREDS of verses that do not mean the same thing from one bible version to the next.
What you have are presently 85% of seminarians and future pastors who openly admit that no Bible is the inerrant word of God.
What you have are modern day Christians who practically never read or study their multiple-choice, conflicting and watered down bible versions, and are the most Biblically ignorant generation to ever inhabit this once fair land of ours.
This is all part of God's plan. He said there would be a falling away from the faith before His return in glory, and no one can or will stop it.
Here are some quotes from scholars who have adopted your present view of the Scriptures.
Some modern scholars are a little more honest than others.
http://www.biblebelievers.net/BibleVersions/kjcforv3.htm
The neutral method of Bible study leads to skepticism
concerning the New Testament text. This was true long before
the days of Westcott and Hort. As early is 1771 Griesbach wrote,
"The New Testament abounds in more losses, additions, and
interpolations, purposely introduced then any other book." And
Griesbach's outlook was shared by J. L. Hug, who in 1808
advanced the theory that in the second century the New
Testament text had become deeply degenerate and corrupt and
that all extant New Testament texts were but editorial revisions of
this corrupted text.
As early as 1908 Rendel Harris declared that the New
Testament text had not at all been settled but was "more than
ever, and perhaps finally, unsettled."
Two years later Conybeare gave it as his opinion that "the
ultimate (New Testament) text, if there ever was one that
deserves to be so called, is for ever irrecoverable."
Later (1941) Kirsopp Lake, after a life time spent in the study of
the New Testament text, delivered the following, judgment: "In
spite of the claims of Westcott and Hort and of von Soden, we do
not know the original form of the Gospels, and it is quite likely
that we never shall."
H. Greeven (1960) also has acknowledged the uncertainty of the
neutral method of New Testament textual criticism. "In general,"
he says, "the whole thing is limited to probability judgments; the
original text of the New Testament, according to its; nature, must
be and remains a hypothesis."
And R. M. Grant (1963) adopts a still more despairing attitude.
"The primary goal of New Testament textual study," he tells us,
"remains the recovery of what the New Testament writers wrote.
We have already suggested that to achieve this goal is well-nigh
impossible."
Now, if all bibles are prone to error and none of them is the infallible and inerrant word of God, then how do you know the gospel is true? If God lied about preserving His words in a Book, then how can we trust Him to save our souls and forgive our sins if we believe in Christ? At what point does God start to tell the truth?
Will K
No infallible Bible - why preach?
godrulz said:
Hi gr, what you have is literally THOUSANDS of words missing in such versions as the NIV, NASB, ESV, all of which are found in versions like the Spanish Reina Valera, the NKJV, the King James Bible, and many others.
What you have are HUNDREDS of verses that do not mean the same thing from one bible version to the next.
What you have are presently 85% of seminarians and future pastors who openly admit that no Bible is the inerrant word of God.
What you have are modern day Christians who practically never read or study their multiple-choice, conflicting and watered down bible versions, and are the most Biblically ignorant generation to ever inhabit this once fair land of ours.
This is all part of God's plan. He said there would be a falling away from the faith before His return in glory, and no one can or will stop it.
Here are some quotes from scholars who have adopted your present view of the Scriptures.
Some modern scholars are a little more honest than others.
http://www.biblebelievers.net/BibleVersions/kjcforv3.htm
The neutral method of Bible study leads to skepticism
concerning the New Testament text. This was true long before
the days of Westcott and Hort. As early is 1771 Griesbach wrote,
"The New Testament abounds in more losses, additions, and
interpolations, purposely introduced then any other book." And
Griesbach's outlook was shared by J. L. Hug, who in 1808
advanced the theory that in the second century the New
Testament text had become deeply degenerate and corrupt and
that all extant New Testament texts were but editorial revisions of
this corrupted text.
As early as 1908 Rendel Harris declared that the New
Testament text had not at all been settled but was "more than
ever, and perhaps finally, unsettled."
Two years later Conybeare gave it as his opinion that "the
ultimate (New Testament) text, if there ever was one that
deserves to be so called, is for ever irrecoverable."
Later (1941) Kirsopp Lake, after a life time spent in the study of
the New Testament text, delivered the following, judgment: "In
spite of the claims of Westcott and Hort and of von Soden, we do
not know the original form of the Gospels, and it is quite likely
that we never shall."
H. Greeven (1960) also has acknowledged the uncertainty of the
neutral method of New Testament textual criticism. "In general,"
he says, "the whole thing is limited to probability judgments; the
original text of the New Testament, according to its; nature, must
be and remains a hypothesis."
And R. M. Grant (1963) adopts a still more despairing attitude.
"The primary goal of New Testament textual study," he tells us,
"remains the recovery of what the New Testament writers wrote.
We have already suggested that to achieve this goal is well-nigh
impossible."
Now, if all bibles are prone to error and none of them is the infallible and inerrant word of God, then how do you know the gospel is true? If God lied about preserving His words in a Book, then how can we trust Him to save our souls and forgive our sins if we believe in Christ? At what point does God start to tell the truth?
Will K
brandplucked
New member
Revelation 16:16 "And HE gathered them..."
Revelation 16:16 "And HE gathered them..."
Hi saints, I have tons of examples like this one, but I am presently studying Revelation again, and noticed this one.
Barnes Commentary on Revelation 16:16
"And he gathered them together. Who gathered them? Professor Stuart renders it, "they gathered them together," supposing that it refers to the "spirits"--\~pneumata\~--in Revelation 16:13, and that this is the construction of the neuter plural with a singular verb. Hengstenberg supposes that it means that God gathered them together; others suppose that it was the sixth angel; others that it was Satan; others that it was the beast; and others that it was Christ."
Revelation 16:16 “And HE gathered them together into a place called in the Hebrew tongue Armageddon.” All Greek texts here read the singular "HE gathered", referring to God.
Other Bible versions that correctly read "And HE gathered them together" are the following: Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, Bishops’ Bible 1568, Douay 1950, World English Bible, Hebrew Names Version, Lamsa’s translation of the Syriac Peshitta 1933, Webster’s 1833 translation, the Third Millenium Bible, the KJV 21st Century version, Green’s Modern KJV, Berry’s interlinear, the Spanish Reina Valera 1909 and 1960, Darby's translation of 1870, and Rotherham's Emphasized Bible all agree with the King James Bible.
However the NKJV reads: "And THEY gathered them together to the place..." The NIV and NASB are also in error here, because even their Greek texts read suvngogEn - singular, not suvngogOn - plural. Other bible versions that incorrectly translate this verse as "THEY gathered them together" are the following: The RV, ASV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, Holman Standard, Young's, and the Geneva Bible.
The book of Revelation clearly shows us Almighty God who is in complete control of all events; including those that are energized by Satan and his devils. Even when Satan does his worst, it is God who is in control.
In Revelation 13 we read of the beast that: "IT WAS GIVEN UNTO HIM to continue forty and two months...AND IT WAS GIVEN UNTO HIM to make war with the saints and to overcome them; and power WAS GIVEN UNTO HIM over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations." Who gave him this power? It was God Almighty, "who worketh all things after the counsel of His own will." Ephesians 1:11.
Revelation 16 describes the seven angels pouring out their vials of the wrath of God. Three unclean spirits like frogs come out of the mouths of the dragon, the beast and the false prophet to gather the kings of the earth to the battle of that great day of God Almighty. But notice that it is God who directs and controls all events. It is the battle of God Almighty, not the battle of mere men or devils.
The same truth of the sovereignty of God in battle is taught in Zechariah 14:1-4 where we read: "Behold, the day of the LORD cometh...FOR I WILL GATHER ALL NATIONS AGAINST JERUSALEM TO BATTLE...Then shall the LORD go forth, and fight against those nations...And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem."
Compare also Zephaniah 3:8 "For MY determination is to gather all nations, THAT I MAY ASSEMBLE the kingdoms, to pour upon them mine indignation, even all my fierce anger: for all the earth shall be devoured with the fire of my jealousy."
The Lord Jesus then says in Revelation 16:15: "Behold, I come as a thief. Blessed is he that watcheth, and keepeth his garments, lest he walk naked, and they see his shame."
Then we read: "And HE gathered them together into a place called in the Hebrew tongue Armageddon." Even the Westcott-Hort and the UBS Critical Greek texts read this way.
Another "renowned scholar", Daniel Wallace, with his NET bible translation, also adds a bunch of words not found in any Greek text.
NET - Revelation 16:16 "Now THE SPIRITS gathered THE KINGS AND THEIR ARMIES to the place that is called Armageddon in Hebrew."
First, Mr. Wallace changes the simple word "And" (kai) to "Now". Secondly, the Greek text is a singular verb "HE gathered", yet Wallace erroneously tells us the verb is plural, when all lexicons admit it is a singular verb. It is God who gathers the kings of the earth to the battle of that great day of God Almighty. Mr. Wallace then proceeds to freely paraphrase this as "the spirits" (pure interpretation, not translation), and then adds "the kings and their armies", which is found in no Greek text on this earth.
Another abomination out there being passed off as "a bible", which is highly popular among the Rick Warren crowd, is called The Message. Eugene Peterson's version reads: "THE FROG-DEMONS gathered THE KINGS together at the place called in Hebrew Armageddon."
Not all Bible versions have the same meanings in hundreds of verses. The King James Bible is always right. Don't settle for a poor substitute like the New KJV.
Will Kinney
Revelation 16:16 "And HE gathered them..."
Hi saints, I have tons of examples like this one, but I am presently studying Revelation again, and noticed this one.
Barnes Commentary on Revelation 16:16
"And he gathered them together. Who gathered them? Professor Stuart renders it, "they gathered them together," supposing that it refers to the "spirits"--\~pneumata\~--in Revelation 16:13, and that this is the construction of the neuter plural with a singular verb. Hengstenberg supposes that it means that God gathered them together; others suppose that it was the sixth angel; others that it was Satan; others that it was the beast; and others that it was Christ."
Revelation 16:16 “And HE gathered them together into a place called in the Hebrew tongue Armageddon.” All Greek texts here read the singular "HE gathered", referring to God.
Other Bible versions that correctly read "And HE gathered them together" are the following: Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, Bishops’ Bible 1568, Douay 1950, World English Bible, Hebrew Names Version, Lamsa’s translation of the Syriac Peshitta 1933, Webster’s 1833 translation, the Third Millenium Bible, the KJV 21st Century version, Green’s Modern KJV, Berry’s interlinear, the Spanish Reina Valera 1909 and 1960, Darby's translation of 1870, and Rotherham's Emphasized Bible all agree with the King James Bible.
However the NKJV reads: "And THEY gathered them together to the place..." The NIV and NASB are also in error here, because even their Greek texts read suvngogEn - singular, not suvngogOn - plural. Other bible versions that incorrectly translate this verse as "THEY gathered them together" are the following: The RV, ASV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, Holman Standard, Young's, and the Geneva Bible.
The book of Revelation clearly shows us Almighty God who is in complete control of all events; including those that are energized by Satan and his devils. Even when Satan does his worst, it is God who is in control.
In Revelation 13 we read of the beast that: "IT WAS GIVEN UNTO HIM to continue forty and two months...AND IT WAS GIVEN UNTO HIM to make war with the saints and to overcome them; and power WAS GIVEN UNTO HIM over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations." Who gave him this power? It was God Almighty, "who worketh all things after the counsel of His own will." Ephesians 1:11.
Revelation 16 describes the seven angels pouring out their vials of the wrath of God. Three unclean spirits like frogs come out of the mouths of the dragon, the beast and the false prophet to gather the kings of the earth to the battle of that great day of God Almighty. But notice that it is God who directs and controls all events. It is the battle of God Almighty, not the battle of mere men or devils.
The same truth of the sovereignty of God in battle is taught in Zechariah 14:1-4 where we read: "Behold, the day of the LORD cometh...FOR I WILL GATHER ALL NATIONS AGAINST JERUSALEM TO BATTLE...Then shall the LORD go forth, and fight against those nations...And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem."
Compare also Zephaniah 3:8 "For MY determination is to gather all nations, THAT I MAY ASSEMBLE the kingdoms, to pour upon them mine indignation, even all my fierce anger: for all the earth shall be devoured with the fire of my jealousy."
The Lord Jesus then says in Revelation 16:15: "Behold, I come as a thief. Blessed is he that watcheth, and keepeth his garments, lest he walk naked, and they see his shame."
Then we read: "And HE gathered them together into a place called in the Hebrew tongue Armageddon." Even the Westcott-Hort and the UBS Critical Greek texts read this way.
Another "renowned scholar", Daniel Wallace, with his NET bible translation, also adds a bunch of words not found in any Greek text.
NET - Revelation 16:16 "Now THE SPIRITS gathered THE KINGS AND THEIR ARMIES to the place that is called Armageddon in Hebrew."
First, Mr. Wallace changes the simple word "And" (kai) to "Now". Secondly, the Greek text is a singular verb "HE gathered", yet Wallace erroneously tells us the verb is plural, when all lexicons admit it is a singular verb. It is God who gathers the kings of the earth to the battle of that great day of God Almighty. Mr. Wallace then proceeds to freely paraphrase this as "the spirits" (pure interpretation, not translation), and then adds "the kings and their armies", which is found in no Greek text on this earth.
Another abomination out there being passed off as "a bible", which is highly popular among the Rick Warren crowd, is called The Message. Eugene Peterson's version reads: "THE FROG-DEMONS gathered THE KINGS together at the place called in Hebrew Armageddon."
Not all Bible versions have the same meanings in hundreds of verses. The King James Bible is always right. Don't settle for a poor substitute like the New KJV.
Will Kinney
brandplucked
New member
Is the NKJV the same as the KJB?
Is the NKJV the same as the KJB?
If you think the New KJV is the same as the 1611 King James Bible, but with more modern English, then I hope this little study will reveal to you that they are not at all the same in hundreds of verses. Both cannot equally be the perfect word of God at the same time when they are so different from each other.
Genesis 20:16 KJB - "Behold, HE IS TO THEE A COVERING OF THE EYES, unto all that are with thee, and with all other: thus she was reproved." RV, ASV, Geneva, Spanish, Douay, Young's, Darby and others equal KJB.
Now that it is known to all that Abraham is Sarah's wife, others would not look upon Sarah as a potential mate. Her husband, Abraham, would in effect cause others to cover their eyes from looking upon Sarah in this way.
NKJV: "INDEED THIS VINDICATES YOU before all who are with you and before all others. Thus she was reproved. "
Genesis 49:6 KJB - "in their selfwill THEY DIGGED DOWN A WALL." Geneva Bible, 1936 Jewish, Douay, Hebrew Names Bible, Reina Valera 1602, Diodati, KJV 21, TMB, Webster's = KJB.
NKJV "in their self will THEY HAMSTRUNG AN OX."
Exodus 15:2 KJB - "The LORD is my strength and song, and he is become my salvation: he is my God, and I WILL PREPARE HIM AN HABITATION."
NKJV - "he is my God, and I WILL PRAISE HIM."
The NKJV reads like the RSV, NASB, NIV, ESV. See this site for a more in depth study as to why the KJB is right and the NKJV is not.
http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/BibleBabel.html
1 Kings 10:28 KJB - "And Solomon had horses brought out of Egypt, and LINEN YARN: the king's merchants received THE LINEN YARN at a price."
NKJV - "Also Solomon had horses imported from Egypt and KEVAH; the king's merchants bought them IN KEVAH at the current price."
Numbers 21:14: KJB - "Wherefore it is said in the book of the wars of the LORD, WHAT HE DID IN THE RED SEA, and in the brooks of Arnon,"
NKJV - "Therefore it is said in the Book of the Wars of the LORD: WAHEB IN SUPHAH, The brooks of the Arnon."
1 Samuel 13:21 KJB - "YET THEY HAD A FILE for the mattocks...to sharpen the goads."
This is also the reading of the RV, ASV, Geneva, Lamsa, Young's, Webster's, TMB, KJV 21, Hebrew Names Version and others.
NKJV - "AND THE CHARGE FOR A SHARPENING WAS A PIM for the plowshares...and to set the points of the goads."
2 Samuel 14:14 KJB - "For we must needs die, and are as water spilt on the ground, which cannot be gathered up again: NEITHER DOTH GOD RESPECT ANY PERSON : yet he doth devise means, that his banished be not expelled from him."
NKJV - "Yet GOD DOES NOT TAKE AWAY LIFE; but He devises means..."
A clear contradiction. God does take away life. See 1 Sam. 2:6; 2 Sam. 6:7; 12:15; Deut. 32:39 and Luke 12:5.
1 Chronicles 4:10
The King James Bible says: "And Jabez called on the God of Israel, saying, Oh that thou wouldest bless me indeed, and enlarge my coast, and that thine hand might be with me, and that thou wouldest keep me from EVIL, THAT IT MAY NOT GRIEVE ME! And God granted him that which he requested."
The KJB reading is matched by the Jewish translations of 1917, 1936, Geneva Bible, Darby, RV, ASV, Green's interlinear, Douay, Spanish Reina Valera, Webster's 1833 translation, Third Millenium Bible and the KJV 21st Century version.
However the NKJV says: "and that You would keep me from evil, that I MAY NOT CAUSE PAIN." (in italics, as though this word were not in the Hebrew). But it is in the Hebrew and the NKJV has changed the meaning of the verse.
The word to grieve is definitely in the text, contrary to the NKJV's italics. It is # 6087 and is used in Genesis 6:6. "And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it GRIEVED him at his heart."
1 Chronicles 20:3 KJB - "And he brought out the people that were in it, and CUT THEM WITH SAWS, and with harrows of iron, and with axes."
NKJV - "And he brought out the people who were in it, and PUT THEM TO WORK with saws, with iron picks, and with axes."
Job 39:13 KJB - "GAVEST THOU THE GOODLY WINGS UNTO THE PEACOCKS? OR WINGS AND FEATHERS UNTO THE OSTRICH?"
NKJV - "THE WINGS OF THE OSTRICH WAVE PROUDLY, BUT ARE HER WINGS AND PINIONS LIKE THE KINDLY STORK?"
Job 40:23 KJB - "BEHOLD, HE DRINKETH UP A RIVER, AND HASTETH NOT."
NKJV - " INDEED THE RIVER MAY RAGE, YET HE IS NOT DISTURBED."
Psalms 4:4 KJB - "STAND IN AWE, and sin not."
This is even the reading of the RV, ASV and others. Even the NASB has "Tremble, and sin not", but the NKJV joins the LXX and the NIV and says: "BE ANGRY, and do not sin."
Psalm 7:4 KJB - "YEA, I HAVE DELIVERED HIM THAT WITHOUT CAUSE IS MINE ENEMY."
NKJV - "OR HAVE I PLUNDERED MY ENEMY WITHOUT CAUSE"
Psalm 10:3 KJB - "He blesseth the covetous, WHOM THE LORD ABHORRETH"
NKJV - "He blesses the greedy AND RENOUNCES THE LORD."
Psalm 12:5 KJB - "I will set him in safety FROM HIM THAT PUFFETH AT HIM."
Even the NIV says: "I will protect them from those who malign them" but the NKJV says: "I will set him in safety FOR WHICH HE YEARNS."
Psalm 36:2 KJB - "For he flattereth himself in his own eyes UNTIL HIS INIQUITY BE FOUND TO BE HATEFUL."
NKJV - "For he flatters himself in his own eyes WHEN HE FINDS OUT HIS INIQUITY AND WHEN HE HATES."
Psalm 37:20 KJB - "the enemies of the LORD SHALL BE AS THE FAT OF LAMBS: they shall consume."
NKJV - "the enemies of the LORD, LIKE THE SPLENDOR OF THE MEADOWS, shall vanish."
Psalm 56:12 KJB - "THY VOWS ARE UPON ME, O God." God made the vows.
NKJV - "VOWS MADE TO YOU ARE BINDING UPON ME, O God." Man made the vows.
Psalm 68:16 KJB - "WHY LEAP YE, YE HIGH HILLS?"
NKJV - "WHY DO YOU FUME WITH ENVY, YOU MOUNTAINS OF MANY PEAKS?"
Psalm 76:10 KJB - "Surely the wrath of man shall praise thee: THE REMAINDER OF WRATH SHALT THOU RESTRAIN."
NKJV - "WITH the remainder of wrath YOU SHALL GIRD YOURSELF."
Proverbs 3:4 KJB - "Write them upon thine heart: So shalt thou find favour and GOOD UNDERSTANDING"
NKJV - "and so find favor and HIGH ESTEEM"
Proverbs 8:30 KJB - "Then I was by him, AS ONE BROUGHT UP WITH HIM: and I was daily his delight."
NKJV - "Then I was beside Him AS A MASTER CRAFTSMAN."
Proverbs 16:10 KJB - "A DIVINE SENTENCE is in the lips of the king: his mouth transgresseth not in judgment."
NKJV - "EVEN THOUGH DIVINATION is on the lips of the king his mouth MUST not transgress in judgment."
Proverbs 18:1 KJB - "THROUGH DESIRE A MAN, HAVING SEPARATED HIMSELF, SEEKETH AND INTERMEDDLETH WITH ALL WISDOM."
The 1599 Geneva Study Bible notes: 18:1 Through desire a man, having separated himself, seeketh [and] intermeddleth with all wisdom.
He who loves wisdom will separate himself from all impediments, and give himself wholly to seek it.
NKJV - "A MAN WHO ISOLATES HIMSELF SEEKS HIS OWN DESIRE; HE RAGES AGAINST ALL WISE JUDGMENT."
Proverbs 19:18 KJB - "Chasten thy son while there is hope, and LET NOT THY SOUL SPARE FOR HIS CRYING."
NKJV - "Chasten your son while there is hope, AND DO NOT SET YOUR HEART ON HIS DESTRUCTION."
Proverbs 19:27 KJB - "Cease, my son, to hear the instruction THAT CAUSETH TO ERR FROM the words of knowledge."
NKJV - "Cease LISTENING TO INSTRUCTION, my son, AND YOU WILL STRAY FROM the words of knowledge."
Proverbs 29:24 KJB - "Whoso is partner with a thief hateth his own soul: HE HEARETH CURSING, AND BEWRAYETH IT NOT."
NKJV - "Whoever is a partner with a thief hates his own life: HE SWEARS TO TELL THE TRUTH BUT REVEALS NOTHING."
Ecclesiastes 4:16 "There is no end of all the people, EVEN OF ALL THAT HAVE BEEN BEFORE THEM: they also that come after shall not rejoice in him. Surely this also is vanity and vexation of spirit."
Here the NIV, RV, ASV, Holman Standard, Geneva Bible and the NASB all say the same thing as the King James Bible with it's "even of all that have been before them" but the NKJV says: "There was no end of all the people OVER WHOM HE WAS MADE KING: Yet those who come afterward will not rejoice in him." The NKJV reading is not at all what the Hebrew text says.
Isaiah 66:5 KJB - "Hear the word of the LORD, ye that tremble at his word; Your brethren that hated you, that cast you out for my name's sake, said, Let the LORD be glorified: BUT HE SHALL APPEAR TO YOUR JOY, and they shall be ashamed."
NKJV -"Let the LORD be glorified, THAT WE MAY SEE YOUR JOY. But they shall be ashamed." The NKJV changed the subject of the sentence. And what happened to the second coming of the Lord in this verse?
Lamentations 1:7 "the adversaries saw her, and did mock at her SABBATHS."
Here the NKJV seriously departs from the meaning found in the KJB, and by its footnote implies the KJB has followed the wrong texts. The NKJV joins the RSV and Holman Standard and says "the adversaries saw her and mocked at her DOWNFALL." Then in a footnote tells us "The Vulgate reads her Sabbaths", implying that the KJB translators followed the Latin Vulgate rather than the Hebrew texts. The NIV has "her destruction" and the NASB "her ruin."
The Hebrew word here rendered as "sabbaths" is #4868 and it comes from the verb meaning to rest or to keep Sabbath. It is used in Genesis 2:2 "and he RESTED on the seventh day from all his work which he had made" and in 2 Chronicles 36:21 "for as long as she lay desolate SHE KEPT SABBATH, to fulfill threescore and ten years." Even the NKJB reads the same in these passages.
Not only does the King James Bible read "and did mock at her SABBATHS" but so also do the Geneva Bible, Bishops' Bible, Coverdale, Rotherham's Emphasized Bible, the Spanish Reina Valera 1909, Webster's, Douay, and the Third Millenium Bible.
Hosea 13:14
One of the most beautiful verses in Hosea has been destroyed by many modern versions. In the KJB, RV, ASV , Darby, Geneva, Young, 1917, 1936 Hebrew-English versions, and the Spanish of 1909 we read in Hosea 13:14 "I will ransom them from the power of the grave; I will redeem them from death; O death, I will be thy plagues; O Grave, I will be thy destruction, REPENTANCE shall be hid from mine eyes."
In other words, God has promised to destroy death and He will not change His mind nor alter His purpose. Every commentator I looked up had basically the same understanding of this beautiful passage. John Gill comments:" repentance shall be hid from mine eyes; that is, the Lord will never repent of his decree of redemption from hell, death, and the grave; nor of the work of it by Christ; nor of the entire destruction of these things; which being once done, will never be repented of nor recalled, but remain so for ever."
BUT, instead of "repentance shall be hid from mine eyes" the NKJV has "I will ransom them from the power of the grave; I will redeem them from death. O Death, I will be your plagues! O Grave, I will be your destruction. PITY is hidden from My eyes."
Matthew 7:14 KJB - "Because strait is the gate and NARROW is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it."
NKJV - "Because narrow is the gate and DIFFICULT is the way which leads to life".
The way is narrow but easy to enter, not difficult. We enter by simple faith in our Saviour Jesus Christ. Not even the NIV, NASB read as does the NKJV here.
Matthew 12:40 KJB - "For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the WHALE'S belly: so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth."
The word is clearly WHALE and is so rendered in Tyndale, Geneva, the RV, ASV, RSV, Spanish, Diodati, Wycliff, Webster's, TMB, KJV 21 and the World English Bible.
NKJV - "three days and three nights in the belly of THE GREAT FISH", the NASB says it was a "SEA MONSTER"!
Acts 17:22 KJB - "Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars' hill, and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are TOO SUPERSTITIOUS."
NKJV - "Then Paul stood in the midst of the Areopagus and said, "Men of Athens, I perceive that in all things you are VERY RELIGIOUS;"
1 Corinthians 15:33 KJB - "Be not deceived. EVIL COMMUNICATIONS CORRUPT GOOD MANNERS." The evil communications or words are the false doctrine referred to in verse 12 "How say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?"
NKJV - "Be not deceived. EVIL COMPANY corrupts GOOD HABITS." A popular saying but not what God wrote in His word.
2 Cor. 2:17 KJB - "For we are not as many, which CORRUPT the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ."
NKJV "For we are not, as so many, PEDDLING the word of God; but as of sincerity, but as from God, we speak in the sight of God in Christ."
Phillipians 2:6 KJB - "Who, being in the form of God, THOUGHT IT NOT ROBBERY TO BE EQUAL WITH GOD."
NKJV 1979 edition "Who, being in the form of God, DID NOT CONSIDER EQUALITY WITH GOD SOMETHING TO BE GRASPED."
Compare the phrase "The black man thought it not robbery to be equal with the white man" with "The black man did not consider equality with the white man something to be grasped." Not the same meaning at all.
Hebrews 3:16 KJB - "FOR SOME, WHEN THEY HAD HEARD, DID PROVOKE; HOWBEIT NOT ALL THAT came out of Egypt by Moses." Notice it is a statement and Caleb and Joshua did not provoke but believed God.
NKJV - "FOR WHO, HAVING HEARD, REBELLED? INDEED, WAS IT NOT ALL WHO CAME OUT OF EGYPT, led by Moses?" Two questions and the answer would be Yes, all provoked. A clear contradiction.
2 Peter 3:12 KJB - "Looking for and HASTING UNTO the coming of the day of God.". Our lives are quickly over and we hasten towards that coming day. We can not speed up God's timetable. The times and the seasons the Father hath put in His own power. See Acts 1:7; Daniel 2:21 "He changeth the times and the seasons."
NKJV - "looking for and HASTENING THE COMING of the day of God." Wrongly teaches that we can do something to speed up this coming day, which has already been appointed and marked on the calendar by God Himself.
See http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/hastingunto.html for an in depth study of this verse showing why the NKJV is wrong.
Revelation 19:8 KJB - "And to her (the Lamb's wife) was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and WHITE, for the fine linen IS THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF SAINTS."
The white linen is the imputed righteousness of the Lord Jesus Christ. Isaiah 61:10 "He hath clothed me with the garments of salvation, he hath covered me with the robe of righteousness."
NKJV - "And to her it was granted to be arrayed in fine linen, clean and BRIGHT, for the fine linen IS THE RIGHTEOUS ACTS of the saints."
If your "righteous acts" make up your fine linen, it will be soiled, tattered and skimpy to be sure.
These are just a very few of the hundreds of very real differences between the New KJV and the true King James Bible. Don't be fooled by a poor imitation.
Will Kinney
Is the NKJV the same as the KJB?
If you think the New KJV is the same as the 1611 King James Bible, but with more modern English, then I hope this little study will reveal to you that they are not at all the same in hundreds of verses. Both cannot equally be the perfect word of God at the same time when they are so different from each other.
Genesis 20:16 KJB - "Behold, HE IS TO THEE A COVERING OF THE EYES, unto all that are with thee, and with all other: thus she was reproved." RV, ASV, Geneva, Spanish, Douay, Young's, Darby and others equal KJB.
Now that it is known to all that Abraham is Sarah's wife, others would not look upon Sarah as a potential mate. Her husband, Abraham, would in effect cause others to cover their eyes from looking upon Sarah in this way.
NKJV: "INDEED THIS VINDICATES YOU before all who are with you and before all others. Thus she was reproved. "
Genesis 49:6 KJB - "in their selfwill THEY DIGGED DOWN A WALL." Geneva Bible, 1936 Jewish, Douay, Hebrew Names Bible, Reina Valera 1602, Diodati, KJV 21, TMB, Webster's = KJB.
NKJV "in their self will THEY HAMSTRUNG AN OX."
Exodus 15:2 KJB - "The LORD is my strength and song, and he is become my salvation: he is my God, and I WILL PREPARE HIM AN HABITATION."
NKJV - "he is my God, and I WILL PRAISE HIM."
The NKJV reads like the RSV, NASB, NIV, ESV. See this site for a more in depth study as to why the KJB is right and the NKJV is not.
http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/BibleBabel.html
1 Kings 10:28 KJB - "And Solomon had horses brought out of Egypt, and LINEN YARN: the king's merchants received THE LINEN YARN at a price."
NKJV - "Also Solomon had horses imported from Egypt and KEVAH; the king's merchants bought them IN KEVAH at the current price."
Numbers 21:14: KJB - "Wherefore it is said in the book of the wars of the LORD, WHAT HE DID IN THE RED SEA, and in the brooks of Arnon,"
NKJV - "Therefore it is said in the Book of the Wars of the LORD: WAHEB IN SUPHAH, The brooks of the Arnon."
1 Samuel 13:21 KJB - "YET THEY HAD A FILE for the mattocks...to sharpen the goads."
This is also the reading of the RV, ASV, Geneva, Lamsa, Young's, Webster's, TMB, KJV 21, Hebrew Names Version and others.
NKJV - "AND THE CHARGE FOR A SHARPENING WAS A PIM for the plowshares...and to set the points of the goads."
2 Samuel 14:14 KJB - "For we must needs die, and are as water spilt on the ground, which cannot be gathered up again: NEITHER DOTH GOD RESPECT ANY PERSON : yet he doth devise means, that his banished be not expelled from him."
NKJV - "Yet GOD DOES NOT TAKE AWAY LIFE; but He devises means..."
A clear contradiction. God does take away life. See 1 Sam. 2:6; 2 Sam. 6:7; 12:15; Deut. 32:39 and Luke 12:5.
1 Chronicles 4:10
The King James Bible says: "And Jabez called on the God of Israel, saying, Oh that thou wouldest bless me indeed, and enlarge my coast, and that thine hand might be with me, and that thou wouldest keep me from EVIL, THAT IT MAY NOT GRIEVE ME! And God granted him that which he requested."
The KJB reading is matched by the Jewish translations of 1917, 1936, Geneva Bible, Darby, RV, ASV, Green's interlinear, Douay, Spanish Reina Valera, Webster's 1833 translation, Third Millenium Bible and the KJV 21st Century version.
However the NKJV says: "and that You would keep me from evil, that I MAY NOT CAUSE PAIN." (in italics, as though this word were not in the Hebrew). But it is in the Hebrew and the NKJV has changed the meaning of the verse.
The word to grieve is definitely in the text, contrary to the NKJV's italics. It is # 6087 and is used in Genesis 6:6. "And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it GRIEVED him at his heart."
1 Chronicles 20:3 KJB - "And he brought out the people that were in it, and CUT THEM WITH SAWS, and with harrows of iron, and with axes."
NKJV - "And he brought out the people who were in it, and PUT THEM TO WORK with saws, with iron picks, and with axes."
Job 39:13 KJB - "GAVEST THOU THE GOODLY WINGS UNTO THE PEACOCKS? OR WINGS AND FEATHERS UNTO THE OSTRICH?"
NKJV - "THE WINGS OF THE OSTRICH WAVE PROUDLY, BUT ARE HER WINGS AND PINIONS LIKE THE KINDLY STORK?"
Job 40:23 KJB - "BEHOLD, HE DRINKETH UP A RIVER, AND HASTETH NOT."
NKJV - " INDEED THE RIVER MAY RAGE, YET HE IS NOT DISTURBED."
Psalms 4:4 KJB - "STAND IN AWE, and sin not."
This is even the reading of the RV, ASV and others. Even the NASB has "Tremble, and sin not", but the NKJV joins the LXX and the NIV and says: "BE ANGRY, and do not sin."
Psalm 7:4 KJB - "YEA, I HAVE DELIVERED HIM THAT WITHOUT CAUSE IS MINE ENEMY."
NKJV - "OR HAVE I PLUNDERED MY ENEMY WITHOUT CAUSE"
Psalm 10:3 KJB - "He blesseth the covetous, WHOM THE LORD ABHORRETH"
NKJV - "He blesses the greedy AND RENOUNCES THE LORD."
Psalm 12:5 KJB - "I will set him in safety FROM HIM THAT PUFFETH AT HIM."
Even the NIV says: "I will protect them from those who malign them" but the NKJV says: "I will set him in safety FOR WHICH HE YEARNS."
Psalm 36:2 KJB - "For he flattereth himself in his own eyes UNTIL HIS INIQUITY BE FOUND TO BE HATEFUL."
NKJV - "For he flatters himself in his own eyes WHEN HE FINDS OUT HIS INIQUITY AND WHEN HE HATES."
Psalm 37:20 KJB - "the enemies of the LORD SHALL BE AS THE FAT OF LAMBS: they shall consume."
NKJV - "the enemies of the LORD, LIKE THE SPLENDOR OF THE MEADOWS, shall vanish."
Psalm 56:12 KJB - "THY VOWS ARE UPON ME, O God." God made the vows.
NKJV - "VOWS MADE TO YOU ARE BINDING UPON ME, O God." Man made the vows.
Psalm 68:16 KJB - "WHY LEAP YE, YE HIGH HILLS?"
NKJV - "WHY DO YOU FUME WITH ENVY, YOU MOUNTAINS OF MANY PEAKS?"
Psalm 76:10 KJB - "Surely the wrath of man shall praise thee: THE REMAINDER OF WRATH SHALT THOU RESTRAIN."
NKJV - "WITH the remainder of wrath YOU SHALL GIRD YOURSELF."
Proverbs 3:4 KJB - "Write them upon thine heart: So shalt thou find favour and GOOD UNDERSTANDING"
NKJV - "and so find favor and HIGH ESTEEM"
Proverbs 8:30 KJB - "Then I was by him, AS ONE BROUGHT UP WITH HIM: and I was daily his delight."
NKJV - "Then I was beside Him AS A MASTER CRAFTSMAN."
Proverbs 16:10 KJB - "A DIVINE SENTENCE is in the lips of the king: his mouth transgresseth not in judgment."
NKJV - "EVEN THOUGH DIVINATION is on the lips of the king his mouth MUST not transgress in judgment."
Proverbs 18:1 KJB - "THROUGH DESIRE A MAN, HAVING SEPARATED HIMSELF, SEEKETH AND INTERMEDDLETH WITH ALL WISDOM."
The 1599 Geneva Study Bible notes: 18:1 Through desire a man, having separated himself, seeketh [and] intermeddleth with all wisdom.
He who loves wisdom will separate himself from all impediments, and give himself wholly to seek it.
NKJV - "A MAN WHO ISOLATES HIMSELF SEEKS HIS OWN DESIRE; HE RAGES AGAINST ALL WISE JUDGMENT."
Proverbs 19:18 KJB - "Chasten thy son while there is hope, and LET NOT THY SOUL SPARE FOR HIS CRYING."
NKJV - "Chasten your son while there is hope, AND DO NOT SET YOUR HEART ON HIS DESTRUCTION."
Proverbs 19:27 KJB - "Cease, my son, to hear the instruction THAT CAUSETH TO ERR FROM the words of knowledge."
NKJV - "Cease LISTENING TO INSTRUCTION, my son, AND YOU WILL STRAY FROM the words of knowledge."
Proverbs 29:24 KJB - "Whoso is partner with a thief hateth his own soul: HE HEARETH CURSING, AND BEWRAYETH IT NOT."
NKJV - "Whoever is a partner with a thief hates his own life: HE SWEARS TO TELL THE TRUTH BUT REVEALS NOTHING."
Ecclesiastes 4:16 "There is no end of all the people, EVEN OF ALL THAT HAVE BEEN BEFORE THEM: they also that come after shall not rejoice in him. Surely this also is vanity and vexation of spirit."
Here the NIV, RV, ASV, Holman Standard, Geneva Bible and the NASB all say the same thing as the King James Bible with it's "even of all that have been before them" but the NKJV says: "There was no end of all the people OVER WHOM HE WAS MADE KING: Yet those who come afterward will not rejoice in him." The NKJV reading is not at all what the Hebrew text says.
Isaiah 66:5 KJB - "Hear the word of the LORD, ye that tremble at his word; Your brethren that hated you, that cast you out for my name's sake, said, Let the LORD be glorified: BUT HE SHALL APPEAR TO YOUR JOY, and they shall be ashamed."
NKJV -"Let the LORD be glorified, THAT WE MAY SEE YOUR JOY. But they shall be ashamed." The NKJV changed the subject of the sentence. And what happened to the second coming of the Lord in this verse?
Lamentations 1:7 "the adversaries saw her, and did mock at her SABBATHS."
Here the NKJV seriously departs from the meaning found in the KJB, and by its footnote implies the KJB has followed the wrong texts. The NKJV joins the RSV and Holman Standard and says "the adversaries saw her and mocked at her DOWNFALL." Then in a footnote tells us "The Vulgate reads her Sabbaths", implying that the KJB translators followed the Latin Vulgate rather than the Hebrew texts. The NIV has "her destruction" and the NASB "her ruin."
The Hebrew word here rendered as "sabbaths" is #4868 and it comes from the verb meaning to rest or to keep Sabbath. It is used in Genesis 2:2 "and he RESTED on the seventh day from all his work which he had made" and in 2 Chronicles 36:21 "for as long as she lay desolate SHE KEPT SABBATH, to fulfill threescore and ten years." Even the NKJB reads the same in these passages.
Not only does the King James Bible read "and did mock at her SABBATHS" but so also do the Geneva Bible, Bishops' Bible, Coverdale, Rotherham's Emphasized Bible, the Spanish Reina Valera 1909, Webster's, Douay, and the Third Millenium Bible.
Hosea 13:14
One of the most beautiful verses in Hosea has been destroyed by many modern versions. In the KJB, RV, ASV , Darby, Geneva, Young, 1917, 1936 Hebrew-English versions, and the Spanish of 1909 we read in Hosea 13:14 "I will ransom them from the power of the grave; I will redeem them from death; O death, I will be thy plagues; O Grave, I will be thy destruction, REPENTANCE shall be hid from mine eyes."
In other words, God has promised to destroy death and He will not change His mind nor alter His purpose. Every commentator I looked up had basically the same understanding of this beautiful passage. John Gill comments:" repentance shall be hid from mine eyes; that is, the Lord will never repent of his decree of redemption from hell, death, and the grave; nor of the work of it by Christ; nor of the entire destruction of these things; which being once done, will never be repented of nor recalled, but remain so for ever."
BUT, instead of "repentance shall be hid from mine eyes" the NKJV has "I will ransom them from the power of the grave; I will redeem them from death. O Death, I will be your plagues! O Grave, I will be your destruction. PITY is hidden from My eyes."
Matthew 7:14 KJB - "Because strait is the gate and NARROW is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it."
NKJV - "Because narrow is the gate and DIFFICULT is the way which leads to life".
The way is narrow but easy to enter, not difficult. We enter by simple faith in our Saviour Jesus Christ. Not even the NIV, NASB read as does the NKJV here.
Matthew 12:40 KJB - "For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the WHALE'S belly: so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth."
The word is clearly WHALE and is so rendered in Tyndale, Geneva, the RV, ASV, RSV, Spanish, Diodati, Wycliff, Webster's, TMB, KJV 21 and the World English Bible.
NKJV - "three days and three nights in the belly of THE GREAT FISH", the NASB says it was a "SEA MONSTER"!
Acts 17:22 KJB - "Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars' hill, and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are TOO SUPERSTITIOUS."
NKJV - "Then Paul stood in the midst of the Areopagus and said, "Men of Athens, I perceive that in all things you are VERY RELIGIOUS;"
1 Corinthians 15:33 KJB - "Be not deceived. EVIL COMMUNICATIONS CORRUPT GOOD MANNERS." The evil communications or words are the false doctrine referred to in verse 12 "How say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?"
NKJV - "Be not deceived. EVIL COMPANY corrupts GOOD HABITS." A popular saying but not what God wrote in His word.
2 Cor. 2:17 KJB - "For we are not as many, which CORRUPT the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ."
NKJV "For we are not, as so many, PEDDLING the word of God; but as of sincerity, but as from God, we speak in the sight of God in Christ."
Phillipians 2:6 KJB - "Who, being in the form of God, THOUGHT IT NOT ROBBERY TO BE EQUAL WITH GOD."
NKJV 1979 edition "Who, being in the form of God, DID NOT CONSIDER EQUALITY WITH GOD SOMETHING TO BE GRASPED."
Compare the phrase "The black man thought it not robbery to be equal with the white man" with "The black man did not consider equality with the white man something to be grasped." Not the same meaning at all.
Hebrews 3:16 KJB - "FOR SOME, WHEN THEY HAD HEARD, DID PROVOKE; HOWBEIT NOT ALL THAT came out of Egypt by Moses." Notice it is a statement and Caleb and Joshua did not provoke but believed God.
NKJV - "FOR WHO, HAVING HEARD, REBELLED? INDEED, WAS IT NOT ALL WHO CAME OUT OF EGYPT, led by Moses?" Two questions and the answer would be Yes, all provoked. A clear contradiction.
2 Peter 3:12 KJB - "Looking for and HASTING UNTO the coming of the day of God.". Our lives are quickly over and we hasten towards that coming day. We can not speed up God's timetable. The times and the seasons the Father hath put in His own power. See Acts 1:7; Daniel 2:21 "He changeth the times and the seasons."
NKJV - "looking for and HASTENING THE COMING of the day of God." Wrongly teaches that we can do something to speed up this coming day, which has already been appointed and marked on the calendar by God Himself.
See http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/hastingunto.html for an in depth study of this verse showing why the NKJV is wrong.
Revelation 19:8 KJB - "And to her (the Lamb's wife) was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and WHITE, for the fine linen IS THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF SAINTS."
The white linen is the imputed righteousness of the Lord Jesus Christ. Isaiah 61:10 "He hath clothed me with the garments of salvation, he hath covered me with the robe of righteousness."
NKJV - "And to her it was granted to be arrayed in fine linen, clean and BRIGHT, for the fine linen IS THE RIGHTEOUS ACTS of the saints."
If your "righteous acts" make up your fine linen, it will be soiled, tattered and skimpy to be sure.
These are just a very few of the hundreds of very real differences between the New KJV and the true King James Bible. Don't be fooled by a poor imitation.
Will Kinney
MartianManhuntr
New member
Rimi said:
I've got two. I also have Thayer's Greek Lexicon, the New Analytical Greek Lexicon, Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew Lexicon, etc. sitting on my desk RIGHT NOW. May I also say that your arrogance is not cute. You act as if you are the world's foremost expert in Greek and Hebrew, yet obviously you know nothing of either one of them, or you would loath Strong's Concordance. It is the most worthless lexicon (if it can even be called that) in existance. It doesn't provide any contextual information on how to decide what meaning to use, but just haphazardly lists a bunch of meanings. How much more worthless could it be! You have to essentially be fluent in the languages to use Strong's, and if you were fluent, you wouldn't use it, because it is really poorly constructed.
Rimi said:
"Get a concordance!" Concordances only list where certain words occur--they don't give definitions (except for Strong's Concordance/Dictionary). What you mean to shout at me in your arrogance is "Get a Lexicon!" Oh, a Lexicon, you say? Well, lets see what a Lexicon says! Oh, wait, I already posted a link to an Internet version of the Brown-Driver-Briggs Genesius Lexicon that says concerning the Hebrew word "Sa`iyr" that it can be translated to "satyr" and "may refer to a demon possessed goat like the swine of Gadara (Mt. 8:30)" http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=08163&version=kjv You can go ahead and click that link if you think I'm being dishonest.
Now, the copy of Brown-Driver-Briggs that I have on my shelf in BOOK FORM says, as the VERY FIST DEFINITION (on page 972, btw) "Satyr." As the SECOND definition it says "demon" and then goes on to talk about other stuff, such as mention texts that use this word and the possibility of it being something with goat's feet or a "hairy demon." You can go to a library and check that out if you think I'm dishonest, but I doubt you'll ever lift a finger to learn the truth. You can also buy a brown-Driver-Briggs Lexicon http://www.google.com/url?sa=U&star...obidos/tg/detail/-/1565632060?v=glance&e=9888 if you aren't too cheap.
Rimi said:
Apparently a well reputed lexicon (what you erroniously refer to as a concordance) states plainly that the word means "Satyr, demon." Now, if such things as Satyrs and demons do not exist, in your opinion, may I suggest that it is a personal problem.
Rimi said:
On page 1072 of the Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew Lexicon on my desk, it says of the word that the KJV translates as "dragon," namely tanniyn: "serpent, dragon, sea-monster" then goes on to talk about the origin of the word and so on. There is NO mention of "jackal." Was Strong a better linguist than Brown, Driver, and Briggs put together? I doubt it. If he was, he would have known how to put a lexicon together, which he didn't.
Rimi said:
Easter and Passover meant the same thing, so there was nothing to catch. But if you must press the issue, it was not me that said the KJV translators were directly inspired. Go back through the previous posts to see how my position differs from many others here. I do not feel like restating what I've already said.
Rimi said:
And where do you get this wisdom, eh? No language on the face of the this earth has the word "Easter" in it except English. Did English as such exist in the year 800AD??? The fact of the matter is that the RCC did NOT create the word "English" and it isn't some kind of trademark word of the RCC. Every language on earth that I know of calls the Passover by some variant in spelling of Pascha, such as Pasque, Paske, Pesech, and so on, except for two languages: German and English. These languages are very closely related. In German you have und and in English and, and in German boke and English book, etc. So also in German Ostern and English Easter. It's not some sort of Catholic plot.
Rimi said:
I said "literal" not "literate." What Tyndale did was take a Biblical explanation of the Passover and use it as a translation for the word "Pesach." In Exodus 12:13 God says "...and when I see the blood, I will pass over you..." Tyndale took that phrase, made it one word, and used it as his translation for "Pesach" to make the meaning of the feast an inherent part of the English word denoting it. This thing that Tyndale did, some might say, is even better than, for example, what French of Spanish did by just creating a spelling variant of the Greek word Pascha. They know that it's called "Pascha" but do they know what Pascha means? In English, we know what it means, because Tyndale put down "Passover" which is a compound word in English.
Rimi said:
That's what I said.
Rimi said:
Not in the same way that it was back then. Back then the terms were synonymous. Now they have a loose association. That's why people think that "Easter" is an error in the text, because they are importing the modern meaning back into an old text.
Rimi said:
It is arrogant to admit the truth? I was unaware of that. They called it Easter because that's what it was called--that's what happened. You must also remember that the task of translating the Scriptures was given to several committees, so you will find some differences in translation of similar terms based on what book you are reading. But this really isn't a bad thing, because it gives you a fuller understanding of the Scriptures as a whole. Isn't this what MVer's alway are after? They are after the "nuances of the original Greek," right? Well, the KJV has got the nuances more than any modern translation as a result of this. (Read over this paragraph again if you lost what "this" if refering back to in that last sentence.)
Rimi said:
It's very simple alright! If you actually know the langauges; if you actually know what tools to use in looking at the languages; if you care to spend the time to do the research, then you will side with the KJV in opposition to modern version. It's that simple.
fundamental
New member
Preserved Lexicons
Preserved Lexicons
BTW, who is preserving the lexicons?!! :doh:
Preserved Lexicons
BTW, who is preserving the lexicons?!! :doh:
MartianManhuntr said:
I think you misunderstand James Strongs Concordance. It was put together for use with the KJV, and originaly the ASV & RSV as well. However the KJV translators translated a word, thats what Strong gives as definitions. It was not made to be an independant Lexicon, like BDB or Thayer, but uses the KJV definitions for readers of that particular version. It is still a great recourse for even today.
MartianManhuntr
New member
conan said:
I did know that. Strong's is still worthless. The only thing it is good for is breeding Bible twisters, because they become deluded into thinking they're experts in Greek because "I've got a Strong's Concordance!" And they just go around haphazardly saying "it should have been translated X" or "X is a possible translation" and they are completely wrong, and have no idea what they are talking about because they know ZERO Greek grammar.
Well, I got great use out of it defending "Christian Translations" from it against a Rabbi claiming we had mistranslated certain words. Buy using it, I was able to show where the translation was indeed correct. It is not worthless. Make your self the same resource without the aid of computers, HVAC, and did they even have eletrical lighting back then? Plus, Thayers, Brown-Driver-Brigs, the Englishmans Greek and the Englishmans Hebrew concordances are coded to it. I think it is wonderful, even if you out grow it.
MartianManhuntr ranted:
Many students of Scriptures, leaders and lay, would seriously disagree with you here. It is called a concordance on the cover, not a lexicon. Splitting hairs?
I'm shouting at you??? Ok, now you're overreacting and have lost all credibility. You've lied and totally disregarded the 30 yrs' work of Dr. Strong so you're not even worth the time here.
My Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible apparently is a concordance because that's what the author and publishers call it. If you can't figure that out, then the rest of what you say is in question.
Interesting. . . . then why would Dr. Strong have put the word jackal in there, seeing as jackal was not a word even mentioned in the KJB. Maybe he was just wanting the student to know that it could be so translated, even if the KJB translators didn't use it?
Good, because you're have to stretch anyway.
Where do I . . . where do you get this wisdom??? You're desparate now: I never implied that the RCC create the word "English". Also, you admit that other languages have similiar spelling to Pascha . . . but the translators got Easter! Not even close. The Greek was Pascha, so translated it would be Passover (the more literal translation). They didn't do it because in their time, Passover was called Easter. They merely called it what it was to them. In mentioned the RCC, I was pointing out how pagan holidays were incorporated in the their rites and rituals, and names were changed or adopted. Yeesh, you couldn't figure that out?
Yeah, and the KJB translators still put Easter in place of Pascha, instead of Passover.
To mere men, not to God, and not to anyone who wanted an actual translation.
You really need to ask yourself this . . . plank in your own eye and all that.
Yes! Right! And it was not an accurate translation because they injected a word they were used to using instead of a straight interpretation!!!
Several committees, right. And some differences in translations, right. And we're talking about the King James Version only right now. So, then it seems reasonable that other later translations aren't so whacked as you want to believe.
I was not aware that you were fluent in Greek (old/new), Hebrew, Aramaic, and Latin. I already admitted that I was not. That's why I use the Concordance and several translations of the Scriptures.
So there was no Bible till KJV, everybody would have to learn old English, Strong's is useless, and many other things because only KJV is inerrant. Uh, ok. Please respond to Post #143. Thanks.
Many students of Scriptures, leaders and lay, would seriously disagree with you here. It is called a concordance on the cover, not a lexicon. Splitting hairs?
I'm shouting at you??? Ok, now you're overreacting and have lost all credibility. You've lied and totally disregarded the 30 yrs' work of Dr. Strong so you're not even worth the time here.
My Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible apparently is a concordance because that's what the author and publishers call it. If you can't figure that out, then the rest of what you say is in question.
Interesting. . . . then why would Dr. Strong have put the word jackal in there, seeing as jackal was not a word even mentioned in the KJB. Maybe he was just wanting the student to know that it could be so translated, even if the KJB translators didn't use it?
Good, because you're have to stretch anyway.
Where do I . . . where do you get this wisdom??? You're desparate now: I never implied that the RCC create the word "English". Also, you admit that other languages have similiar spelling to Pascha . . . but the translators got Easter! Not even close. The Greek was Pascha, so translated it would be Passover (the more literal translation). They didn't do it because in their time, Passover was called Easter. They merely called it what it was to them. In mentioned the RCC, I was pointing out how pagan holidays were incorporated in the their rites and rituals, and names were changed or adopted. Yeesh, you couldn't figure that out?
Yeah, and the KJB translators still put Easter in place of Pascha, instead of Passover.
To mere men, not to God, and not to anyone who wanted an actual translation.
You really need to ask yourself this . . . plank in your own eye and all that.
Yes! Right! And it was not an accurate translation because they injected a word they were used to using instead of a straight interpretation!!!
Several committees, right. And some differences in translations, right. And we're talking about the King James Version only right now. So, then it seems reasonable that other later translations aren't so whacked as you want to believe.
I was not aware that you were fluent in Greek (old/new), Hebrew, Aramaic, and Latin. I already admitted that I was not. That's why I use the Concordance and several translations of the Scriptures.
So there was no Bible till KJV, everybody would have to learn old English, Strong's is useless, and many other things because only KJV is inerrant. Uh, ok. Please respond to Post #143. Thanks.
Peter A V
New member
B.E.has only unreadable original
B.E.has only unreadable original
Yes,I think we all agree with that.The Antioch church wanted Easter to be celebrated on the same day as the Passover,but the Roman Church over ruled,and had the Alexandrian church set the dates,usually on the Sunday following the exuinox.But the celebration was now a Christian one with Easter standing for not just the roots[Passover]But they had adopted the term for themselves in the Ressurection of the LORD.
B.E.has only unreadable original
.................Rimi said:
Yes,I think we all agree with that.The Antioch church wanted Easter to be celebrated on the same day as the Passover,but the Roman Church over ruled,and had the Alexandrian church set the dates,usually on the Sunday following the exuinox.But the celebration was now a Christian one with Easter standing for not just the roots[Passover]But they had adopted the term for themselves in the Ressurection of the LORD.
brandplucked
New member
Does God require a perfect translation?
Does God require a perfect translation?
Hi Yorzhik, excellent question. We are in agreement that God does not need to have a perfect translation in order to save His people. If He did, then most people today could not get saved because most translations are far from the perfect words of God, though some are much better than others.
However, regarding the central issue of whether there is a perfect Bible or text anywhere on this earth, then I have to conclude from reading the Bible itself, that there must be a perfect Bible somewhere on this earth, or else God lied to us, and I cannot accept this as an alternative.
The Bible itself tells us many times in various ways that God will preserve His words on this earth in a Book. The Hebrew Scriptures are pretty much settled, though there are some disputed readings. But new versions like the NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV and Holman Standard all frequently (and not even in the same places) reject the Hebrew readings, and replace them with one of the alleged LXX readings, the Syriac, the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Latin or they just make up a text, believing that part of the Hebrew texts have been lost forever.
When we get to the New Testament, the inspired Text is greatly in dispute regarding literally thousands of words, and many whole verses.
The only logical position of faith is to believe that if God is true to His words, then He must have preserved His words in a translation of some kind. I believe He did this before the King James Bible as well, but His perfect words were not yet in the English language. From what I know of the historical evidence, the most likely place where the N.T. Scriptures were preserved was in the Old Latin (not the Vulgate) and in the Latinized languages of the Waldensians up until the time of the Reformation.
God sees the end from the beginning. He knew what He would do with the English language and how He would use English and American missionaries carrying the King James Bible to go out into the nations of the world and to evangelize and translate this Bible into foreign languages. So, He placed His preserved words in the English language of the King James Bible.
I do believe the Bible itself teaches that God will preserve His pure words in a Book we can hold in our hands and believe every word. To whom much is given, of him much will be required. When an English speaking country turns its back on the King James Bible, that country goes down the tubes. Take a good look at England since it came out with the Revised Version. Now take a look at where America is headed with more and more perverted bibles being promoted.
The falling away from the faith is something that cannot be stopped, but God always has a remnant according to the election of grace. I do not mean to say by this that if you are not a King James Bible believer, you are then not redeemed and not a child of God. I do not believe that. But, your faith will be greatly weakened if you no longer believe The Bible IS (present tense) the inspired, inerrant, complete and pure words of God.
May God have mercy on His people and open more spiritual eyes to where His pure words are found today.
Will Kinney
Does God require a perfect translation?
Yorzhik said:
Hi Yorzhik, excellent question. We are in agreement that God does not need to have a perfect translation in order to save His people. If He did, then most people today could not get saved because most translations are far from the perfect words of God, though some are much better than others.
However, regarding the central issue of whether there is a perfect Bible or text anywhere on this earth, then I have to conclude from reading the Bible itself, that there must be a perfect Bible somewhere on this earth, or else God lied to us, and I cannot accept this as an alternative.
The Bible itself tells us many times in various ways that God will preserve His words on this earth in a Book. The Hebrew Scriptures are pretty much settled, though there are some disputed readings. But new versions like the NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV and Holman Standard all frequently (and not even in the same places) reject the Hebrew readings, and replace them with one of the alleged LXX readings, the Syriac, the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Latin or they just make up a text, believing that part of the Hebrew texts have been lost forever.
When we get to the New Testament, the inspired Text is greatly in dispute regarding literally thousands of words, and many whole verses.
The only logical position of faith is to believe that if God is true to His words, then He must have preserved His words in a translation of some kind. I believe He did this before the King James Bible as well, but His perfect words were not yet in the English language. From what I know of the historical evidence, the most likely place where the N.T. Scriptures were preserved was in the Old Latin (not the Vulgate) and in the Latinized languages of the Waldensians up until the time of the Reformation.
God sees the end from the beginning. He knew what He would do with the English language and how He would use English and American missionaries carrying the King James Bible to go out into the nations of the world and to evangelize and translate this Bible into foreign languages. So, He placed His preserved words in the English language of the King James Bible.
I do believe the Bible itself teaches that God will preserve His pure words in a Book we can hold in our hands and believe every word. To whom much is given, of him much will be required. When an English speaking country turns its back on the King James Bible, that country goes down the tubes. Take a good look at England since it came out with the Revised Version. Now take a look at where America is headed with more and more perverted bibles being promoted.
The falling away from the faith is something that cannot be stopped, but God always has a remnant according to the election of grace. I do not mean to say by this that if you are not a King James Bible believer, you are then not redeemed and not a child of God. I do not believe that. But, your faith will be greatly weakened if you no longer believe The Bible IS (present tense) the inspired, inerrant, complete and pure words of God.
May God have mercy on His people and open more spiritual eyes to where His pure words are found today.
Will Kinney
cranstonroby
New member
WILL KINNEY:Here are some things to consider.
"There is No Infallible Bible"
Most Christians today do NOT believe The Bible IS the inerrant and infallible word of God.
Will, I see you're once again on your endless, futile quest to hop from board to board, hoping to find someone...ANYONE...who'll believe your KJVO myth. Long as you do, there'll be those like me, coming in behind you to provide the readership with the TRUTH.
I SEE YOU'VE STARTED YOUR POST WITH A "BIG ONE" ALREADY. The TRUTH is that most Christians today don'e believe the KJVO myth, as more & more of them are taking time to actually STUDY KJVO & see its cultic, man-made origins.
This statement may seem shocking at first, and many pastors and Christians will give the knee-jerk reaction saying that they do believe the Bible IS the infallible word of God. However, upon further examimation, it will soon be discovered that when they speak of an inerrant Bible, they are not referring to something that actually exists anywhere on this earth. They are talking about a mystical Bible that exists only in their imaginations; and each person's particular version differs from all the others.
YOUR standards aren't GOD'S standards. Each and every valid version in whatever language is perfect for GOD'S intended use that He'd planned before He caused/allowed each of them to be made.
God said: "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord GOD, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the LORD." Amos 8:11
You're ripping a verse outta context as usual for you, Will. Reading the surrounding verses to place 8:11 in the context Amos(and GOD) intended, shows this verse applied to the Israelis of his day(700s BC) who were into big-time idol-worship. And the abundance of Bibles throughout most of the world backs up the above.
The Lord Jesus Christ also stated in Luke 18:8 "Nevertheless, when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?"
The apostle Paul wrote concerning the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together unto Him: "Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, EXCEPT THERE COME A FALLING AWAY FIRST..." 2 Thessalonians 2:3
The modern KJVO myth is indeed part of that "falling away".
The number of professing Christians who do not believe in a "hold it in your hands and read" type of inspired Bible has steadily increased over the years since the flood of multiple-choice, conflicting and contradictory modern bible versions began to appear about 100 years ago.
Actually, an almost-cultic myth about one of the best English Bible versions of all time began to spread after 1930. This myth was started by a cult(SDA) official(Dr Ben Wilkinson) and spread by two dishonest Baptist authors(J.J.Ray in 1955, Dr.D.O.Fuller in 1970), copying each other's misinformation, spreading lies about the KJV and about other English versions.
To avoid making this post overly long, I've omitted your material you've copied from Barna, etc. but believe me, I've carefully read it, and it's a matter of public record in your post.
No absolute truth
The explosion of modern versions has encouraged the student to pick and choose his own preferred readings and has created a tendency to treat every Bible lightly and to look upon none as the final words of God.
Actually, you've chosen to build your own final written authority around one particular version, daring to call it "perfect" when it has PROVEN BOOBOOS.
Here are some facts taken directly from the Holy Bible. You do not need to be a scholar or seminary student to get a grasp of what the Bible says about itself. You either believe God or you don't.
The Bible believer first looks to God and His word to determine what the Book says about itself. The Bible cannot be clearer concerning it's preservation:
Isaiah 40:8: "The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever."
Psalm 100:5: "For the LORD is good; his mercy is everlasting; and his truth endureth to all generations."
Psalm 33:11: "The counsel of the LORD standeth for ever, the thoughts of his heart to all generations."
Psalm 119:152, 160: "Concerning thy testimonies, I have known of old that Thou hast founded them for ever. ... thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever."
Isaiah 59:21: "... My Spirit that is upon thee [Isaiah], and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever."
Matthew 5:17-18: "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."
Matthew 24:35: "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away."
John 10:35: "... the Scripture cannot be broken."
No Christian denies that God has preserved His word. However, we DO deny, and PROVE, that God is NOT LIMITED to preserving His word in the manner the KJVOs say. God did NOT retire in 1611, nor can He be kept in a box by the KJVOers and others who would restrice His supplying of His word AS HE CHOOSES.
Do any of the above verses specify any one language, let alone any one version in any one language, in which God's word can be found ONLY, to the exclusion of any others? Please, KJVOs, show us where ONE WORD of the above verses points to the KJV alone!
I cut-n-pasted the verses below from the list above for special attention, to show the readership the foolishness of tow points of the KJVO myth.
Psalm 12:6-7: "The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever."
The KJVO premise that this verse is about the preservation of God's words is WRONG! Wilkinson published this idea in his 1930 book, Our Authorized Bible Vindicated , Ray copied it from him, and Fuller copied from both Wilkinson and Ray. (Real honest bunch, eh?)
If these KJVOs would read the REAL KJV...the AV 1611...they'd see just how FOOLISH their KJVO myth is. The AV contains this marginal note for Ps. 12:7..."Heb.him, I . euery one of them". That PROVES the AV men believed that verse to be about the PEOPLE mentioned in the preceding verses. Yet another KJVO false doctrine goes"POOF!" in the face of the AV itself. I believe the AV men knew more about their work than any of today's KJVOs.
What this does, Will, is prove you're just another KJVO "party-liner", spreading the guff of Wilkinson, Ray, and Fuller, ignoring the FACTS that Wilkinson was a cult official & that his book is full of misinformation, and that ray copied heavily from it, while Fuller copied heavily from both Wilkinson and Ray, even trying to conceal Wilkinson's CULT AFFILIATION! (Wilkinson died in 1968; Fuller wrote in 1970) The Psalm 12:6-7 thingie was written by Wilkinson, copied by Ray, then Fuller, & is now spread by the likes of Ruckman, Riplinger, and YOU. It would be quite hilarious if the subject...GOD'S WORD...wasn't so serious, given all the other verses which CLEARLY state God has preserved His word, without having to be twisted by men to make'em read as they wish.
Psalm 138:2: "I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name."
This is an example of a very poor rendering, given all the other verses where God says HIS NAME is supreme, & that He's given JESUS a name above all other names. It SHOULD read, "magnified Your word ALONG WITH all Your name." Call me a Bible-corrector if you wish, but when the TRANSLATION doesn't exactly follow its SOURCE BEING TRANSLATED, it calls for correction.
(Continued next post)
"There is No Infallible Bible"
Most Christians today do NOT believe The Bible IS the inerrant and infallible word of God.
Will, I see you're once again on your endless, futile quest to hop from board to board, hoping to find someone...ANYONE...who'll believe your KJVO myth. Long as you do, there'll be those like me, coming in behind you to provide the readership with the TRUTH.
I SEE YOU'VE STARTED YOUR POST WITH A "BIG ONE" ALREADY. The TRUTH is that most Christians today don'e believe the KJVO myth, as more & more of them are taking time to actually STUDY KJVO & see its cultic, man-made origins.
This statement may seem shocking at first, and many pastors and Christians will give the knee-jerk reaction saying that they do believe the Bible IS the infallible word of God. However, upon further examimation, it will soon be discovered that when they speak of an inerrant Bible, they are not referring to something that actually exists anywhere on this earth. They are talking about a mystical Bible that exists only in their imaginations; and each person's particular version differs from all the others.
YOUR standards aren't GOD'S standards. Each and every valid version in whatever language is perfect for GOD'S intended use that He'd planned before He caused/allowed each of them to be made.
God said: "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord GOD, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the LORD." Amos 8:11
You're ripping a verse outta context as usual for you, Will. Reading the surrounding verses to place 8:11 in the context Amos(and GOD) intended, shows this verse applied to the Israelis of his day(700s BC) who were into big-time idol-worship. And the abundance of Bibles throughout most of the world backs up the above.
The Lord Jesus Christ also stated in Luke 18:8 "Nevertheless, when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?"
The apostle Paul wrote concerning the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together unto Him: "Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, EXCEPT THERE COME A FALLING AWAY FIRST..." 2 Thessalonians 2:3
The modern KJVO myth is indeed part of that "falling away".
The number of professing Christians who do not believe in a "hold it in your hands and read" type of inspired Bible has steadily increased over the years since the flood of multiple-choice, conflicting and contradictory modern bible versions began to appear about 100 years ago.
Actually, an almost-cultic myth about one of the best English Bible versions of all time began to spread after 1930. This myth was started by a cult(SDA) official(Dr Ben Wilkinson) and spread by two dishonest Baptist authors(J.J.Ray in 1955, Dr.D.O.Fuller in 1970), copying each other's misinformation, spreading lies about the KJV and about other English versions.
To avoid making this post overly long, I've omitted your material you've copied from Barna, etc. but believe me, I've carefully read it, and it's a matter of public record in your post.
No absolute truth
The explosion of modern versions has encouraged the student to pick and choose his own preferred readings and has created a tendency to treat every Bible lightly and to look upon none as the final words of God.
Actually, you've chosen to build your own final written authority around one particular version, daring to call it "perfect" when it has PROVEN BOOBOOS.
Here are some facts taken directly from the Holy Bible. You do not need to be a scholar or seminary student to get a grasp of what the Bible says about itself. You either believe God or you don't.
The Bible believer first looks to God and His word to determine what the Book says about itself. The Bible cannot be clearer concerning it's preservation:
Isaiah 40:8: "The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever."
Psalm 100:5: "For the LORD is good; his mercy is everlasting; and his truth endureth to all generations."
Psalm 33:11: "The counsel of the LORD standeth for ever, the thoughts of his heart to all generations."
Psalm 119:152, 160: "Concerning thy testimonies, I have known of old that Thou hast founded them for ever. ... thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever."
Isaiah 59:21: "... My Spirit that is upon thee [Isaiah], and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever."
Matthew 5:17-18: "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."
Matthew 24:35: "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away."
John 10:35: "... the Scripture cannot be broken."
No Christian denies that God has preserved His word. However, we DO deny, and PROVE, that God is NOT LIMITED to preserving His word in the manner the KJVOs say. God did NOT retire in 1611, nor can He be kept in a box by the KJVOers and others who would restrice His supplying of His word AS HE CHOOSES.
Do any of the above verses specify any one language, let alone any one version in any one language, in which God's word can be found ONLY, to the exclusion of any others? Please, KJVOs, show us where ONE WORD of the above verses points to the KJV alone!
I cut-n-pasted the verses below from the list above for special attention, to show the readership the foolishness of tow points of the KJVO myth.
Psalm 12:6-7: "The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever."
The KJVO premise that this verse is about the preservation of God's words is WRONG! Wilkinson published this idea in his 1930 book, Our Authorized Bible Vindicated , Ray copied it from him, and Fuller copied from both Wilkinson and Ray. (Real honest bunch, eh?)
If these KJVOs would read the REAL KJV...the AV 1611...they'd see just how FOOLISH their KJVO myth is. The AV contains this marginal note for Ps. 12:7..."Heb.him, I . euery one of them". That PROVES the AV men believed that verse to be about the PEOPLE mentioned in the preceding verses. Yet another KJVO false doctrine goes"POOF!" in the face of the AV itself. I believe the AV men knew more about their work than any of today's KJVOs.
What this does, Will, is prove you're just another KJVO "party-liner", spreading the guff of Wilkinson, Ray, and Fuller, ignoring the FACTS that Wilkinson was a cult official & that his book is full of misinformation, and that ray copied heavily from it, while Fuller copied heavily from both Wilkinson and Ray, even trying to conceal Wilkinson's CULT AFFILIATION! (Wilkinson died in 1968; Fuller wrote in 1970) The Psalm 12:6-7 thingie was written by Wilkinson, copied by Ray, then Fuller, & is now spread by the likes of Ruckman, Riplinger, and YOU. It would be quite hilarious if the subject...GOD'S WORD...wasn't so serious, given all the other verses which CLEARLY state God has preserved His word, without having to be twisted by men to make'em read as they wish.
Psalm 138:2: "I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name."
This is an example of a very poor rendering, given all the other verses where God says HIS NAME is supreme, & that He's given JESUS a name above all other names. It SHOULD read, "magnified Your word ALONG WITH all Your name." Call me a Bible-corrector if you wish, but when the TRANSLATION doesn't exactly follow its SOURCE BEING TRANSLATED, it calls for correction.
(Continued next post)
MartianManhuntr
New member
Rimi said:
Fine, I will repeat myself. I'm TROnly (Received Text only) not KJVOnly in the strictes sense. In otherwords, unlike these other fellows around here I believe the original Hebrew and Greek still exists and is inspired and inerrant. Now, I do believe the KJV is the only widely available English translation to be used, not that it is directly inspired, but that in being an accurate translation of the inspired and inerrant Received Text and in that it is without proven error, it is also inspired and inerrant, as the originals are. BTW, I would have no problem with any accurate modern translation that was made purely from the Received Text. However, none exists. The NKJV payed some lip service to the Received Text, but did not strictly follow it nor accurately translate it. If a modern version were to be made that did, however, I wouldn't be against it. The NKJV is currently the closest, BUT in some places it conpletely reverses the sense of the passage (and I presume it does so on purpose) as with Hebrews 3:16 where it says "For who, having heard, rebelled? Indeed, was it not all who came out of Egypt, led by Moses?" when it should say "For some, when they had heard, did rebel: but not all that came out of Egypt by Moses." Until an English translation is made that actualy does follow the Received Text, the KJV will remain the best and the only English translation of Scripture.
Rimi said:
I meant the word "Easter." The RCC did not create the word "Easter." As your following comment indicates...
Rimi said:
Which shows that the RCC did not create the word "Easter" because Spanish and French are more full of Catholic influence than English, and they don't have the word "Easter" in them.
Rimi said:
The problems with other translation are (1) that they do not follow the Received Text and (2) that they paraphrase. So, although the KJV was translated by various comittees who may have translated some words slightly differently in their respective books, nevertheless they all used the Received Text and Formal Equivalence rather than Paraphrase.
Rimi said:
There was the Received Text in Hebrew and Greek. That's why you should have read my previous posts on my position.
Rimi said:
That is a fact that anyone with any real knowledge of Greek or Hebrew knows.
Rimi said:
Jesus was quoting loosely, and all translations will reflect that fact, unless they purposefully alter the OT passage to match his loose quote or alter his loose quote to make it match the OT passage exactly word for word. For those who don't want to go back and find post #143 it's about Isaiah 29:13 and Mat 15:8-9 and why they don't match perfectly.
cranstonroby
New member
WILL KINNEY: God has promised to preserve His wordS IN A BOOK here on this earth till heaven and earth pass away. He either did this and we can know where they are found today, or He lied and He lost some of them, and we can never be sure if what we are reading are the true words of God or not.
Hmmm...If one took a Russian-language Bible and a Chinese-language Bible & translated both of them very accurately into English, he'd then have two different English versions, neither of which would match exactly any other already-existing version. This is TRUTH; Will is trying to act out a pipe dream.
God's words are in a BOOK. Consider the following verses: "Now go, write it before them in a table, and NOTE IT IN A BOOK, that it may be for the time to come FOR EVER AND EVER." Isaiah 30:8
That "book" was originally in HEBREW, which few people in the world could then read, and fewer can read now. Why Hebrew? Because God had appointed the JEWS, from among all the Israelis, to be the keepers of God's written word, and at the time, their language was Hebrew. But God caused His word to be translated into other languages. For example, Ptolemy Philadelph had the Greek-language LXX made by the Jews, as many Jews then spoke/read only Greek, and there were a number of Greeks & Greek-speaking Egyptians
And I doubt if the Hebrew of Isaiah was the same Proto-Hebrew used by Moses some 700 years earlier, same as our English is not that of Chaucer from about 700 years ago.
"Seek ye out of THE BOOK of the LORD, and READ: no one of these shall fail...for my mouth it hath commanded..." Isaiah 34:16
"Then said I, Lo, I come: in the volume of THE BOOK it is written of me, I delight to do thy will, O my God: yea, thy law is within my heart." Psalm 40:7-8
"And if any man shall take away from THE WORDS OF THE BOOK of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are WRITTEN IN THIS BOOK." Revelation 22:19
Any PARTICULAR TRANSLATION OR VERSION mentioned in the above verses?
I believe the King James Bible is the inspired, inerrant and complete words of God for the following reasons:
#1 The Old Testament is based solely on the Hebrew Masoretic texts, in contrast to the NASB, NIV, ESV, Holman CSB and other modern versions that frequently reject the Hebrew readings. The Old Testament oracles of God were committed to the Jews and not to the Syrians, the Greeks or the Latins. "What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God." (Romans 3:1-2) The Lord Jesus Christ said not one jot or one tittle would pass from the law till all be fulfilled. - Matthew 5:18
And JESUS HIMSELF READ ALOUD from a GREEK version, possibly the LXX, in Luke 4:16-21. Simply compare JESUS' WORDS in Luke with the translation from the Hebrew in Isaiah 61:1-3 and Isaiah 42:7-8. Whatever version Jesus read from, the Masoretic Text does NOT match it. And with all due respect, Will, I believe JESUS knew/knows the Scriptures better than YOU do...after all He MADE most of them.
See my two articles on how the modern versions all reject the Hebrew texts.
Been there...seen it...done that umpteen times. Same ole, same ole. You cannot prove GOD limited His OT word to Hebrew, especially in light of the existence of the LXX, and whatever Greek versions the apostles used to make quotes of the OT.
#2 The King James Bible alone is without proven error, and this in spite of intense opposition and criticism from the Bible correctors and modern scholarship.
Actually, the errors are there, and PROVEN, despite your objections. One is "Easter" in Acts 12:4; another is "slew and hanged" in Acts 5:30. While none of them are bad enuff for me to shelve my KJVs and AV 1611s, they DO shoot down the myth of perfection for the KJV.
"Seek ye out of THE BOOK of the LORD, and read: no one of these shall fail..." Isaiah 34:16.
I believe that's what every real Christian does.
#3 I believe in the Sovereignty and Providence of Almighty God.
So does every other Christian.
God knew beforehand how He would mightily use the King James Bible to become THE Bible of the English speaking people who would carry the gospel to the ends of the earth during the great modern missionary outreach from the late 1700's to the 1950's.
Pure conjecture. You've been posting that same codwallop for years. It was guesswork then and is guesswork now.
The King James Bible was used as the basis for hundreds of foreign language translations,
And so was the Latin Vulgate.
and English has become the first truly global language in history.
Actually, Spanish could be a better candidate. And no more than 1/6 of the world uses English.
See article Can a Translation Be Inspired? http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/transinsp.html
Actually, no one valid translation is inspired more than any other, and you, Will, can prove no differently.
#4 The King James Bible is always a true witness and never lies or perverts sound doctrine. This is in contrast to all modern English versions that do pervert sound doctrine in numerous verses and prove themselves to be false witnesses to the truth of God.
Actually, newer translations often translate many points much-better than the KJV does, but you simply won't admit it. We've seen that in your many versions comparisons. Your ONLY defense against this point is that "it aint the KJV".
"Thy word is true from the beginning, and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever." Psalm 119:160
"A faithful witness will not lie: but a false witness will utter lies." Proverbs 14:5
In contrast, all the modern versions like the NASB, NIV, NKJV, ESV contain proveable and serious doctrinal errors. See my article on No Doctrines Are Changed?:
However, upon close examination, most of your points are proven wrong, but again, you'll not admit it.
http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/nodoctrine.html
#5 At every opportunity the King James Bible exalts the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ to His rightful place as the sinless, eternally only begotten Son of God who is to be worshipped as being equal with God the Father. All modern versions debase and lower the Person of Christ in various ways.
Know what "Bah! Humbug!" means? You REALLY expect to pull the wool over the eyes of this board's readership? Shoot, the NIV uses Jesus' name more times than the KJV does.
"GOD was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory." 1 Timothy 3:16. (compare this verse in the NIV, NASB, ESV, and Holman) See also John 3:13; Luke 23:42, and 1 Corinthians 15:47.
So some other versions use "He"? The preceding verses clearly point out that the antecedent of "He" is GOD.
See article on The Only Begotten Son
http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/begotnSon.html
Like it or not, acknowledge it or not, that's the way the Greek reads in places..."only begotten GOD."
#6 The explosion of modern versions has encouraged the student to pick and choose his own preferred readings
Despite your propaganda, the TRUTH is, that with the explosion of knowledge prophesied for the general time of the end, God is increasing the knowledge about HIMSELF to those who earnestly seek it. And trying to limit His word to just one version may well be trying to fight against GOD HIMSELF. The modern serious Bible student has a large variety of translations, reflecting God's influence upon each of them according to His will, to choose from, and, by relying upon the HOLY SPIRIT for guidance, the student will be led to the version(s) HE wants him/her to use. Indeed, the Holy Spirit may have led YOU, Will, to the KJV alone, but plainly He chooses differently for some other believers. He may lead others to the KJV alone, or, as he's done for me, He may lead some to a variety of translations, or as He's done for others, to one other translation alone besides the KJV. NOWHERE in Scripture does GOD point out a final language or version for His word.
Why was the OT originally in hebrew & the NT originally in Koine Greek? Because those were the main written languages of the people God had chosen as His writers of His word. Those were the only written languages most of His penmen knew. The multilingual Paul wrote mostly in Greek because that was the language of those to whom he sent his epistles.
Did GOD not make all languages, or cause them to be made? Is Jesus, in His office of The Word, not still in charge of all languages, and of the Scriptures? Where does JESUS limit the Scriptures to just one version? This thing appears to have been the work of MEN and not GOD.
and has created a tendency to treat every Bible lightly and to look upon none as the final words of God....
...while YOU have picked and chosen, by personal preference, just one version, trying to justify your choice by guesswork, fishing stories, hearsay, fables, imagination & skewed opinion, and downright HORSE FEATHERS.
The Bible itself prophesies that in the last days many shall turn away their ears from hearing the truth and the falling away from the faith will occur. The Lord Jesus asks: "Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?" Luke 18:8
While later on, He DOES admonish His servants to KEEP THE FAITH.
"Behold, the days come, saith the Lord GOD, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the LORD." Amos 8:11
I already explained that you're ripping this verse out of context, an the surrounding verses point out the proper setting for this verse...Israel, during its rule by the Assyrians, and, for the Jews, the Babylonians.
"Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk therein." Jeremiah 6:16
Nothing to do with Bible versions. God was using Jeremiah to ask the idol-worshipping Jews to return to Him lest He carry out His prophesied punishments upon them. And we all know what happened next...
The new versions like the NIV, NASB, ESV, and Holman Standard all reject the Traditional Greek Text, and instead rely primarily on two very corrupt Greek manuscripts called Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. These so called "oldest and best" manuscripts also form the basis of all Catholic versions as well as the Jehovah Witness version.
Actually, that's only partially true. The newer versions use many, MANY mss not available to the translators of older versions. God is allowing the knowledge of Himself to ioncrease along with general knowledge, and only a MORON automatically rejects these lnew discoveries. The KJVOs say Tischendorf found the Sinaiticus ms in a trashcan in a monastery...but they do NOT consider the possibility that GOD preserved it from being burnt, as it had been in that trash recepticle for some time & the usually fastidiously-clean monks hadn't burned it along with their daily trash that they burned.
And Vaticanus? The RCs generally quickly burned any ms they considered corrupt, while touting those they considered valid. Why,then, was Vaticanus not either touted or burned, as was the custom of the RCC in dealing with old mss that came into its possession? Once again, no one has bothered to explore the possibility that GOD had a hand in it.
Judge for yourself, readers...Since Scripture is our highest written authority, ANY theory about it MUST BE SUPPORTED by it, to be valid. WHERE is the Scriptural support for the KJVO myth? It's in the pouch of the North American kangaroo. Sorry. Will, but no matter how many feathers you glue onto the KJVO hippo, IT STILL WON'T FLY!
The KJVO myth is a false, totally MAN-MADE set of theories that people like Will try to make into doctrines. BEWARE THE LEAVEN OF THE KJVOS!
Hmmm...If one took a Russian-language Bible and a Chinese-language Bible & translated both of them very accurately into English, he'd then have two different English versions, neither of which would match exactly any other already-existing version. This is TRUTH; Will is trying to act out a pipe dream.
God's words are in a BOOK. Consider the following verses: "Now go, write it before them in a table, and NOTE IT IN A BOOK, that it may be for the time to come FOR EVER AND EVER." Isaiah 30:8
That "book" was originally in HEBREW, which few people in the world could then read, and fewer can read now. Why Hebrew? Because God had appointed the JEWS, from among all the Israelis, to be the keepers of God's written word, and at the time, their language was Hebrew. But God caused His word to be translated into other languages. For example, Ptolemy Philadelph had the Greek-language LXX made by the Jews, as many Jews then spoke/read only Greek, and there were a number of Greeks & Greek-speaking Egyptians
And I doubt if the Hebrew of Isaiah was the same Proto-Hebrew used by Moses some 700 years earlier, same as our English is not that of Chaucer from about 700 years ago.
"Seek ye out of THE BOOK of the LORD, and READ: no one of these shall fail...for my mouth it hath commanded..." Isaiah 34:16
"Then said I, Lo, I come: in the volume of THE BOOK it is written of me, I delight to do thy will, O my God: yea, thy law is within my heart." Psalm 40:7-8
"And if any man shall take away from THE WORDS OF THE BOOK of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are WRITTEN IN THIS BOOK." Revelation 22:19
Any PARTICULAR TRANSLATION OR VERSION mentioned in the above verses?
I believe the King James Bible is the inspired, inerrant and complete words of God for the following reasons:
#1 The Old Testament is based solely on the Hebrew Masoretic texts, in contrast to the NASB, NIV, ESV, Holman CSB and other modern versions that frequently reject the Hebrew readings. The Old Testament oracles of God were committed to the Jews and not to the Syrians, the Greeks or the Latins. "What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God." (Romans 3:1-2) The Lord Jesus Christ said not one jot or one tittle would pass from the law till all be fulfilled. - Matthew 5:18
And JESUS HIMSELF READ ALOUD from a GREEK version, possibly the LXX, in Luke 4:16-21. Simply compare JESUS' WORDS in Luke with the translation from the Hebrew in Isaiah 61:1-3 and Isaiah 42:7-8. Whatever version Jesus read from, the Masoretic Text does NOT match it. And with all due respect, Will, I believe JESUS knew/knows the Scriptures better than YOU do...after all He MADE most of them.
See my two articles on how the modern versions all reject the Hebrew texts.
Been there...seen it...done that umpteen times. Same ole, same ole. You cannot prove GOD limited His OT word to Hebrew, especially in light of the existence of the LXX, and whatever Greek versions the apostles used to make quotes of the OT.
#2 The King James Bible alone is without proven error, and this in spite of intense opposition and criticism from the Bible correctors and modern scholarship.
Actually, the errors are there, and PROVEN, despite your objections. One is "Easter" in Acts 12:4; another is "slew and hanged" in Acts 5:30. While none of them are bad enuff for me to shelve my KJVs and AV 1611s, they DO shoot down the myth of perfection for the KJV.
"Seek ye out of THE BOOK of the LORD, and read: no one of these shall fail..." Isaiah 34:16.
I believe that's what every real Christian does.
#3 I believe in the Sovereignty and Providence of Almighty God.
So does every other Christian.
God knew beforehand how He would mightily use the King James Bible to become THE Bible of the English speaking people who would carry the gospel to the ends of the earth during the great modern missionary outreach from the late 1700's to the 1950's.
Pure conjecture. You've been posting that same codwallop for years. It was guesswork then and is guesswork now.
The King James Bible was used as the basis for hundreds of foreign language translations,
And so was the Latin Vulgate.
and English has become the first truly global language in history.
Actually, Spanish could be a better candidate. And no more than 1/6 of the world uses English.
See article Can a Translation Be Inspired? http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/transinsp.html
Actually, no one valid translation is inspired more than any other, and you, Will, can prove no differently.
#4 The King James Bible is always a true witness and never lies or perverts sound doctrine. This is in contrast to all modern English versions that do pervert sound doctrine in numerous verses and prove themselves to be false witnesses to the truth of God.
Actually, newer translations often translate many points much-better than the KJV does, but you simply won't admit it. We've seen that in your many versions comparisons. Your ONLY defense against this point is that "it aint the KJV".
"Thy word is true from the beginning, and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever." Psalm 119:160
"A faithful witness will not lie: but a false witness will utter lies." Proverbs 14:5
In contrast, all the modern versions like the NASB, NIV, NKJV, ESV contain proveable and serious doctrinal errors. See my article on No Doctrines Are Changed?:
However, upon close examination, most of your points are proven wrong, but again, you'll not admit it.
http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/nodoctrine.html
#5 At every opportunity the King James Bible exalts the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ to His rightful place as the sinless, eternally only begotten Son of God who is to be worshipped as being equal with God the Father. All modern versions debase and lower the Person of Christ in various ways.
Know what "Bah! Humbug!" means? You REALLY expect to pull the wool over the eyes of this board's readership? Shoot, the NIV uses Jesus' name more times than the KJV does.
"GOD was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory." 1 Timothy 3:16. (compare this verse in the NIV, NASB, ESV, and Holman) See also John 3:13; Luke 23:42, and 1 Corinthians 15:47.
So some other versions use "He"? The preceding verses clearly point out that the antecedent of "He" is GOD.
See article on The Only Begotten Son
http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/begotnSon.html
Like it or not, acknowledge it or not, that's the way the Greek reads in places..."only begotten GOD."
#6 The explosion of modern versions has encouraged the student to pick and choose his own preferred readings
Despite your propaganda, the TRUTH is, that with the explosion of knowledge prophesied for the general time of the end, God is increasing the knowledge about HIMSELF to those who earnestly seek it. And trying to limit His word to just one version may well be trying to fight against GOD HIMSELF. The modern serious Bible student has a large variety of translations, reflecting God's influence upon each of them according to His will, to choose from, and, by relying upon the HOLY SPIRIT for guidance, the student will be led to the version(s) HE wants him/her to use. Indeed, the Holy Spirit may have led YOU, Will, to the KJV alone, but plainly He chooses differently for some other believers. He may lead others to the KJV alone, or, as he's done for me, He may lead some to a variety of translations, or as He's done for others, to one other translation alone besides the KJV. NOWHERE in Scripture does GOD point out a final language or version for His word.
Why was the OT originally in hebrew & the NT originally in Koine Greek? Because those were the main written languages of the people God had chosen as His writers of His word. Those were the only written languages most of His penmen knew. The multilingual Paul wrote mostly in Greek because that was the language of those to whom he sent his epistles.
Did GOD not make all languages, or cause them to be made? Is Jesus, in His office of The Word, not still in charge of all languages, and of the Scriptures? Where does JESUS limit the Scriptures to just one version? This thing appears to have been the work of MEN and not GOD.
and has created a tendency to treat every Bible lightly and to look upon none as the final words of God....
...while YOU have picked and chosen, by personal preference, just one version, trying to justify your choice by guesswork, fishing stories, hearsay, fables, imagination & skewed opinion, and downright HORSE FEATHERS.
The Bible itself prophesies that in the last days many shall turn away their ears from hearing the truth and the falling away from the faith will occur. The Lord Jesus asks: "Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?" Luke 18:8
While later on, He DOES admonish His servants to KEEP THE FAITH.
"Behold, the days come, saith the Lord GOD, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the LORD." Amos 8:11
I already explained that you're ripping this verse out of context, an the surrounding verses point out the proper setting for this verse...Israel, during its rule by the Assyrians, and, for the Jews, the Babylonians.
"Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk therein." Jeremiah 6:16
Nothing to do with Bible versions. God was using Jeremiah to ask the idol-worshipping Jews to return to Him lest He carry out His prophesied punishments upon them. And we all know what happened next...
The new versions like the NIV, NASB, ESV, and Holman Standard all reject the Traditional Greek Text, and instead rely primarily on two very corrupt Greek manuscripts called Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. These so called "oldest and best" manuscripts also form the basis of all Catholic versions as well as the Jehovah Witness version.
Actually, that's only partially true. The newer versions use many, MANY mss not available to the translators of older versions. God is allowing the knowledge of Himself to ioncrease along with general knowledge, and only a MORON automatically rejects these lnew discoveries. The KJVOs say Tischendorf found the Sinaiticus ms in a trashcan in a monastery...but they do NOT consider the possibility that GOD preserved it from being burnt, as it had been in that trash recepticle for some time & the usually fastidiously-clean monks hadn't burned it along with their daily trash that they burned.
And Vaticanus? The RCs generally quickly burned any ms they considered corrupt, while touting those they considered valid. Why,then, was Vaticanus not either touted or burned, as was the custom of the RCC in dealing with old mss that came into its possession? Once again, no one has bothered to explore the possibility that GOD had a hand in it.
Judge for yourself, readers...Since Scripture is our highest written authority, ANY theory about it MUST BE SUPPORTED by it, to be valid. WHERE is the Scriptural support for the KJVO myth? It's in the pouch of the North American kangaroo. Sorry. Will, but no matter how many feathers you glue onto the KJVO hippo, IT STILL WON'T FLY!
The KJVO myth is a false, totally MAN-MADE set of theories that people like Will try to make into doctrines. BEWARE THE LEAVEN OF THE KJVOS!
MartianManhuntr wrote:
But that's just it: there are errors as has been discussed all thru this thread.
I did not say that the RCC did create the word Easter. I wrote in Post #169: "I have no doubt that Easter was used in place of Pascha by Gentiles, specifically the RCC, much like they did with Halloween as early as 800AD." By that I meant, and perhaps I wasn't clear, that RCC assimilated the holiday of Easter much like they did Halloween and other pagan holidays. Halloween sounds no more like Samhain than Easter sounds like Pascha.
Using the same source and they still translated differently. You just made my point.
But there was no Bible but for the RCC latin which they didn't exactly go around asking people to read. Must not have been any Christians in Europe at all.
Dr. Strong and his staff will be surprised to one day hear that.
"Unless they purposefully alter" . . . you mean like putting in Easter (a common name for what the translators celebrated as the passover/resurrection) in place of what was actually presented in Greek, Pascha? Gotcha. It is for certain Jesus would've known the exact words of Is 29:13, since He's God. Now, Jesus quoted loosely . . . what does that tell us? It seems quite clear that Jesus made what He was saying quite clear without having to quote word for word . . . . interesting. Seems He's not nearly as stringent as KJVOs.
But that's just it: there are errors as has been discussed all thru this thread.
I did not say that the RCC did create the word Easter. I wrote in Post #169: "I have no doubt that Easter was used in place of Pascha by Gentiles, specifically the RCC, much like they did with Halloween as early as 800AD." By that I meant, and perhaps I wasn't clear, that RCC assimilated the holiday of Easter much like they did Halloween and other pagan holidays. Halloween sounds no more like Samhain than Easter sounds like Pascha.
Using the same source and they still translated differently. You just made my point.
But there was no Bible but for the RCC latin which they didn't exactly go around asking people to read. Must not have been any Christians in Europe at all.
Dr. Strong and his staff will be surprised to one day hear that.
"Unless they purposefully alter" . . . you mean like putting in Easter (a common name for what the translators celebrated as the passover/resurrection) in place of what was actually presented in Greek, Pascha? Gotcha. It is for certain Jesus would've known the exact words of Is 29:13, since He's God. Now, Jesus quoted loosely . . . what does that tell us? It seems quite clear that Jesus made what He was saying quite clear without having to quote word for word . . . . interesting. Seems He's not nearly as stringent as KJVOs.
cranstonroby
New member
Pastor Enyart:
I have been corresponding with Bro. Will Kinney for several years now. While I believe he's as devout a Christian as any other, he's allowed the KJVO myth to take over his worship life.
He cannot answer some basic questions about the KJVO myth truthfully without shooting that myth in the foot, so, rather than lie, he seeks to change the subject. His usual reply to me and others like me , when we shoot down yet another point of the KJVO myth is, "You have no final authority". Never mind that he has created an artificial "final authority" of HIS OWN CHOOSING, a final authority not proclaimed in his fave Bible version.
MY final written final authority is THE WHOLE BODY OF GOD'S WRITTEN WORD, in the forms and versions HE has chosen for me to use. I do NOT rely upon a myth manufactured by a cult official and two dishonest authors, perpetuated by more dishonest authors and Ministers Of Misinformation such as Ruckman and Riplinger. These paragons of virtue and erudition know a cash cow when they see one...never mind that cow is grazing upon poison mushrooms filled with poppycock and guesswork.
Glad to see yet another pastor who has a talk show and who does NOT subscribe to the false KJVO myth, who knows it's hollow, phony as a football bat...a myth which is capable of destroying the faith of a babe in Christ whose only available Bible is the NIV or some other MV which the KJVOs detest.
I am still awaiting the KJVOs' reply to that very basic question...WHERE, IN THE KJV ITSELF, IS THERE ANY SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT FOR THE KJVO MYTH?????????
I have been corresponding with Bro. Will Kinney for several years now. While I believe he's as devout a Christian as any other, he's allowed the KJVO myth to take over his worship life.
He cannot answer some basic questions about the KJVO myth truthfully without shooting that myth in the foot, so, rather than lie, he seeks to change the subject. His usual reply to me and others like me , when we shoot down yet another point of the KJVO myth is, "You have no final authority". Never mind that he has created an artificial "final authority" of HIS OWN CHOOSING, a final authority not proclaimed in his fave Bible version.
MY final written final authority is THE WHOLE BODY OF GOD'S WRITTEN WORD, in the forms and versions HE has chosen for me to use. I do NOT rely upon a myth manufactured by a cult official and two dishonest authors, perpetuated by more dishonest authors and Ministers Of Misinformation such as Ruckman and Riplinger. These paragons of virtue and erudition know a cash cow when they see one...never mind that cow is grazing upon poison mushrooms filled with poppycock and guesswork.
Glad to see yet another pastor who has a talk show and who does NOT subscribe to the false KJVO myth, who knows it's hollow, phony as a football bat...a myth which is capable of destroying the faith of a babe in Christ whose only available Bible is the NIV or some other MV which the KJVOs detest.
I am still awaiting the KJVOs' reply to that very basic question...WHERE, IN THE KJV ITSELF, IS THERE ANY SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT FOR THE KJVO MYTH?????????
cranstonroby
New member
Martian Manhunter:
First, I like your handle! I have some original "J'onn J'onzz, Manhunter From Mars" comix.
Now...to business. WHICH EDITION of the Textus Receptus do you choose? Erasmus himself made at least two extensive revisions, not to mention those made by Stephanus, Beza, and others. And Dean John Burgon said the TR could stand a thorough revision.
As for Easter in Acts 12:4 of the KJV...IT'S NOT CORRECT. Why? First, there's the very simple, obvious fact that Easter as known in 1611 DID NOT EXIST when Luke wrote Acts, which was no later than 62 AD. Next, the Greek word pascha, which Luke wrote & is rendered "Easter" in that passage in the KJV, meant PASSOVER ONLY in Luke's day.
If the translation is accurately reflecting Luke's written thoughts, it would be "Passover".
The ridiculous theory that Herod was observing a spring rite to Ishtar isn't worth a comment here.
The argument that Passover(that word was coined by Tyndale C.1539) and Easter were still used interchangeably in 1611 flops because the AV translators CLEARLY knew Easter and Passover apart. To them, Easter was the holiest of observances. They list it first & foremost in their list of "Holy Dayes" within the AV 1611, and include a table with which one may find the correct date for Easter in any given year. But they do NOT mention Passover at all, except in the text of the Scriptures. Thus, they venerated Easter, but not Passover, knowing that Passover was given by God ONLY TO ISRAEL, while knowing JESUS died on behalf of us all, Christian Jew & Christian gentile alike. However, being men, they were subject to inintentional booboos, same as WE are, and, with over 700K words translated, there were bound to have been a few anomalies.
First, I like your handle! I have some original "J'onn J'onzz, Manhunter From Mars" comix.
Now...to business. WHICH EDITION of the Textus Receptus do you choose? Erasmus himself made at least two extensive revisions, not to mention those made by Stephanus, Beza, and others. And Dean John Burgon said the TR could stand a thorough revision.
As for Easter in Acts 12:4 of the KJV...IT'S NOT CORRECT. Why? First, there's the very simple, obvious fact that Easter as known in 1611 DID NOT EXIST when Luke wrote Acts, which was no later than 62 AD. Next, the Greek word pascha, which Luke wrote & is rendered "Easter" in that passage in the KJV, meant PASSOVER ONLY in Luke's day.
If the translation is accurately reflecting Luke's written thoughts, it would be "Passover".
The ridiculous theory that Herod was observing a spring rite to Ishtar isn't worth a comment here.
The argument that Passover(that word was coined by Tyndale C.1539) and Easter were still used interchangeably in 1611 flops because the AV translators CLEARLY knew Easter and Passover apart. To them, Easter was the holiest of observances. They list it first & foremost in their list of "Holy Dayes" within the AV 1611, and include a table with which one may find the correct date for Easter in any given year. But they do NOT mention Passover at all, except in the text of the Scriptures. Thus, they venerated Easter, but not Passover, knowing that Passover was given by God ONLY TO ISRAEL, while knowing JESUS died on behalf of us all, Christian Jew & Christian gentile alike. However, being men, they were subject to inintentional booboos, same as WE are, and, with over 700K words translated, there were bound to have been a few anomalies.
- Status